Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

SoftMaker Rolls Out Office Suite for BSD, Linux, and Others 275

martin-k writes "Commercial office suite software is coming to FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, Sharp Zaurus and Windows Mobile. SoftMaker, a German developer, recently released SoftMaker Office, a multi-platform office suite that excels in Microsoft Office compatibility, claims to be much leaner and faster than OpenOffice.org and works on many operating systems, down to PDAs." While SoftMaker certainly isn't new, it is nice to see them roll out a finished suite as opposed to one-off programs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SoftMaker Rolls Out Office Suite for BSD, Linux, and Others

Comments Filter:
  • European Price (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Njovich ( 553857 ) on Monday December 18, 2006 @07:56PM (#17294388)
    I think the prices for Europeans seem a bit steep. For Americans it's $69, for Europeans it's EUR 69. That is 30% more. I know that they might have to pay more taxes, but this is quite a lot. They don't even differentiate between EU and non-EU, but just 'Europe'.

    I suppose the product may be fine, but from a German company I wouldn't expect these kind of things.
  • by shystershep ( 643874 ) * <bdshepherd AT gmail DOT com> on Monday December 18, 2006 @08:05PM (#17294494) Homepage Journal
    not enough better [than OOo] (in my opinion) to warrant the switch

    For personal used, I used OpenOffice.org almost exclusively up until about eight months ago (for business I use Word running under Crossover, because exact formating is crucial for me). At about that time, with no change to my desktop OS (Mandriva 2006 at the time, and had not applied any updates recently), my version of OOo, nor my file server (Debian), OOo simply stopped working with my NFS shares. I don't recall the specifics (& I'm not going to waste the time searching now so I can link it, but it had something to do with file locking), but whenever I tried to load or save a file to the NFS share I got an error to the effect that it was read-only (Word, Kword, Abiword, etc., had no problem). I Googled it, and wasn't the only one that had the problem; I tried some of the kludgy work-arounds that were suggested, but the only one that worked at all only works about 1/2 the time and the rest of the time crashes the program.

    Since then, I've been searching for a replacement word processor (even though I use Word, I don't like it even aside from the cost/MS issues). Recently I have settled for Kword as the least of all evils, but I will be willing to shell out money to Softmaker if the product is as polished as it seems. Based on the trial download, it doesn't seem to write to .odt format, but it does open it flawlessly. Unfortunately, the trial version is crippled so that you can't save to .doc format . . . for a product that is meant to be a Word replacement, it is unspeakably retarded not to let people kick the tires on its Word compatibility.

  • by rduke15 ( 721841 ) <rduke15@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday December 18, 2006 @08:11PM (#17294544)
    What makes Softmaker think there is room in the market for their product ?

    I don't know how much room there is, but I can tell you why I use TextMaker:

    Because I never liked MS Word which is terribly complicated and unpractical, and it is also very expensive.

    Because OpenOffice Writer is an abomination of an awkward and slow as molasses would-be clone of that MS Word which I don't like.
    (Yes, I guess this will modded flamebait, but I really hated OpenOffice every time I thought I would give it another chance)

    TextMaker brought some fresh air into my (simple) word processing needs: it is extremely fast, it has all the features I need, and the ones I use (styles and occasional frames) are much more practical than in Word. Styles are accessible from the right-click menu, frames seemed much easier to work with than when I had to use them in Word, etc.

    The only thing I don't like in TextMaker is it's proprietary default document format. I wish they would switch to ODF. (But maybe ODF is also an abomination like the OOo programs? I wouldn't know but I certainly hope not. We need an open document format)

    (I bought the Windows version. Haven't tried the Linux version yet.)
  • by kevintron ( 1024817 ) on Monday December 18, 2006 @08:32PM (#17294760)
    According to the manuals, a machine running Windows 2000 or XP needs only 64 MB of memory to run these applications. On Windows 98, ME, or NT, only 16 MB will be enough. On Windows 95, only 8 MB.

    OpenOffice.org is great for modern computers, but those of us who like to extend the useful life spans of our older machines could be attracted by these very modest system requirements, and willing to spend a reasonable amount to buy the software.

    Assuming the software doesn't slow to a crawl on a system with those minimum specs, of course.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18, 2006 @08:42PM (#17294868)
    These applications appear to be built upon Qt [trolltech.com]. For those who are not familiar with it, Qt is the premiere C++ GUI toolkit on the market. Not only is it portable, but it's damn fast and resource thrifty. KDE uses it as its underlying toolkit, and it's one of the main reasons that people often find KDE to be more responsive, while also using less memory, than GNOME.

    While it is completely unlikely at this point, were OpenOffice.org to be rebuilt around Qt, it would be far faster and less bloated than it is today. The OpenOffice.org rendering and GUI toolkit framework is one of its weak points, and Qt would go a long way towards improving the situation.

  • by KillerBob ( 217953 ) on Monday December 18, 2006 @09:26PM (#17295288)
    If you don't have Office compatibility, nobody's going to install your program. The sad fact is that MS Office and its variants are on a huge number of PCs out there, and as long as you have any kind of need to interoperate with other people, you absolutely need to have that ability.

    Being compatible with MS Office does *not* mean that you're defaulting to its file format. It means that you have the option of reading documents that people send you in .DOC format, and that if you absolutely need to, you can export it to .DOC for those same people (or any of the other formats Office uses). Until applications like AbiWord and suites like OpenOffice and the one discussed here find greater market penetration, the de facto standard will remain MS Office, and dropping compatibility is not an option.

    What you're proposing will marginalize yourself, and that's exactly what the FOSS movement does *not* need.
  • by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Monday December 18, 2006 @10:41PM (#17295880) Homepage
    Go to any Windows publishing house (and this includes most of the major ones, a bunch of whom I've worked in or with). How do you make a PDF? Well, you start with a Word file and you run it through Acrobat. So making a PDF for such people involves... Word.

    And yes, the book goes into Quark before going to press, but do the authors or editors work in Quark? Do the page designers even work in Quark? No, they all work in Word. It's the lonely guy at the end of the hall doing final layout that dumps everything into the formatter/publisher application just before it goes to press for a full run.

    Until that point, all the way through most of writing, editing, and design, everything is in Word. Word gets used much more than I think people in IT realize. Word/Excel/Powerpoint are the bedrock of corporate America. Most small and medium size companies (and a few large ones, too) do all of their publications with Word, all of their PR with PowerPoint, and all of their databases as Excel sheets. That's just the way it is, like it or hate it. That's all people (all the way up through management) know.

    Just try to get them to change... Or to let you bring something novel to the table. You'll be shown the door.
  • by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @12:59AM (#17296796) Journal
    ...and you'll find much the same, if not worse.

    "Find what?", you may ask. The answer: That for the European price, the company simply takes the U.S. price and replaces the $ with a , and call it a day.

    For example, I recently purchased Paint Shop Pro for an aunt.
    U.S. price: $99.99
    Euro price: 99.99
    That price in Euros is valued at $129.579 (xe.net, December 18th, 2006). 30% more expensive indeed.
    This is for The Netherlands. The Netherlands carries a Sales VAT of 19% on such goods. In other words, 11% is pure profit*

    Add to that that in the U.S. there's a discount on the product to $79.99, and it's a 62% markup, so 43% pure profit*.

    * One may argue that shipping costs (as in, from Country X exported to The Netherlands, as opposed to the U.S.) drive up the price. Not true, this is for the electronic download version (not that the boxed version is more expensive, by the way). One may argue that translation costs drive up the price - also not true, as both the U.S. and Dutch-bought versions ship with all languages.

    So naturally, I purchased through the U.S. store.

    You'll find that it is much the same for any software product, and Europeans are, sadly, used to it. If you happen to know any Dutch, go check the news posts over at www.tweakers.net on newly announced products. Whenever somebody wonders what the price in Euros will be, the standard reply - which tends to work out as being correct - is that if the product costs $100 in the U.S., it will cost 100 in Europe.
    That's probably a bit of a self-perpetuating issue there. Why would a publisher be so silly as to charge less when they can obviously charge more with the consumer half-cursing the practice while at the same time making the purchase anyway?

    So I wouldn't say that I wouldn't expect it from a German company; in fact, I would expect it from -any- company.

    =====

    You might think that $30 more for PSP isn't so bad - but obviously, it gets worse when the cost of the goods increases, such as the gem that is Autodesk's AutoCAD 2007:
    U.S. price: $3,995
    NL price: 4,750
    NL price in dollars: $6,217.48
    Mark-up: 55.63%
    'Profit': 36.63% or $2,277.53
  • by larkost ( 79011 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @09:59AM (#17299390)
    It is not even a mater of having the right version, you also have to have the right version of the fonts installed. If you install other applications from Microsoft after you install the version of Word that you want there is a good chance that the new install will overwrite at least some of the default fonts, and the new version will have slightly different metrics (sizes of the characters). For most people's uses this is not a big deal, but for page layout it is a killer.

    Font versions is the reason you always go to PDF before publication and embed the fonts you are using.

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...