PDA

View Full Version : Star Office Take 2


arn
Aug 5, 2002, 02:30 AM
Arstechnica discusses (http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/staroffice-1.html) the details surrounding the CNet/Sun/Apple/StarOffice article (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/07/20020727015305.shtml) and subsequent retraction (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/07/20020730154147.shtml). In doing so, their conclusion is as follows:

So there is (or was) quite clearly an Apple-Sun project in the works to port StarOffice (not just OpenOffice, but StarOffice) to OS X, and in fact if you read the past two days' collection of PR clean-up stories closely enough you'll see that Sun hasn't really denied that such a project exists.

szark
Aug 5, 2002, 03:20 AM
Hmmm. Interesting. StarOffice, OpenOffice, I don't care, as long as ONE of them gets over to OS X as a native application (no X11).

Here's the best thing I like about this whole situation: ArsTechnica references this CNET article (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-947746.html?tag=fd_top), which contains the following quote:

There apparently is a lot of interest at Sun in StarOffice for OS X because of the number of people who either use Apple PowerBook portables or would like to. Siress noted a number of people are forced to use Windows notebooks.

For this reason, "there is a synergy between Sun and Apple to get rid of Microsoft" at Sun, Siress said. "The one application that Sun needs to make the Apple laptop the standard at Sun is StarOffice. There's a benefit on both sides. The Apple team is very interested in making the Apple laptop the standard at Sun."


Go Apple!

drastik
Aug 5, 2002, 08:29 AM
All right!!!!

Getting apple as standad equipment at Sun would ge wonderfull, now how do you get the word out about that? MAybe a Switch campaign with Sun's CEO. My name's ??????, and I run a Computer company.:D

pgwalsh
Aug 5, 2002, 11:02 AM
I've heard that businesses are now taking StarOffice more seriously since they've started charging for the product. It makes a lot of sense if you're running a small business. So does purchasing a Mac with OS X and its networking capabilities.

ProfTournesol
Aug 6, 2002, 04:41 AM
I have been a user of Star Office since version 3 on OS/2. At that time it was seperate applications like M$ Office but then integrated in an excellent idea in v4. This was very buggy, at least on OS/2, but v5, 5.1 and 5.2 were excellent applications. I remember talking to an Apple salesman at a local computer trade show back in the v4 days about the 'upcoming' StarOffice 4 release as there was information about this on the StarOffice webpage even then (this was before the Sun buyout). So this collaboration is old news. The StarOffice FAQ from v5 onwards only made vague references to Mac so I believe that it was put on the backburner about the time of the Sun takeover. Interstingly though, SO4 and 5 always included Mac window control icons (with OS/2, Windows and Linux).

OSeXy!
Aug 6, 2002, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by ProfTournesol
I have been a user of Star Office since version 3 on OS/2...

In your experience, does StarOffice play nicely with MicroShaft Office files? Sun makes a big point of this on its website - and it is a big point for anyone who wants to ditch M$...

Foulger
Aug 6, 2002, 02:49 PM
I certsainly hope this comes to fruition - its time David slew Goliath once and for all:)

ProfTournesol
Aug 6, 2002, 05:35 PM
SO does a good conversion from word format UNLESS the file has been saved with 'fast save' - a 'feature' of Word designed to stymie any conversion filter. it saved formatting, tables and graphics but not macros. Excel spreadsheets are imported as figures only.

dongmin
Aug 6, 2002, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by drastik
All right!!!!

Getting apple as standad equipment at Sun would ge wonderfull, now how do you get the word out about that? MAybe a Switch campaign with Sun's CEO. My name's ??????, and I run a Computer company.:D

Scott McNeely, the CEO of Sun, is a noted MSoft hater. But I doubt he's so shameless as to do a plug for Apple.

I don't get what all the fuss is about with this StarOffice thing. Is it that much difft from OpenOffice? I thought they were basically the same but with StarOffice having a few extra bells and whistles.

ProfTournesol
Aug 6, 2002, 11:31 PM
i haven't seen OO so I can't comment, but my understanding is that the main changes are an XML based document format, and unbundling (again) of the applcations - a retrograde step in my opinion as the bundled integrated application made it about as close functionally to the Apple/IBM OpenDoc idea that was only briefly and incompletely seen in OS/2 v4. OO also removes the web components like the emailer, newsreader and (maybe) the slow browser. I suppose as time goes on the Sun and open licence versions will diverge further in feature sets.
I can say that having moved from OS/2 and SO5 to OSX and Office v.X I can't see what the fuss is about with Office. Overall it is no better than SO was but much more expensive!

OSeXy!
Aug 7, 2002, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by ProfTournesol
...having moved from OS/2 and SO5 to OSX and Office v.X I can't see what the fuss is about with Office. Overall it is no better than SO was but much more expensive!
For me, compatibility with the rest of the sheep using M$ is the only reason I'm still being shorn by Gates... I can only hope that the general disaffection with MicroShaft which seems to be brewing (see other current thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=8899)) will encourage projects like OO and SO. I don't think Gates will relinquish the office empire easily, though.

pgwalsh
Aug 7, 2002, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by OSeXy!
I don't think Gates will relinquish the office empire easily, though. You know he won't. He'll come out with a new version for the umpteenth million time, claim that it has more features; it's more reliable; and is a must upgrade for any office owner. Then he'll show some silly feature no one will every really use and be done with it. People listen to gates because he looks like an innocent geek that can't harm a thing. A true case of "looks can be deceiving."