OpenOffice to be 'true' Mac application (no X11 Required!!!!)

AtHomeBoy_2000

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 3, 2005
879
0
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=15712

By Macworld staff

Microsoft Office alternative, OpenOffice, will ship in a native version for OS X next month.

OpenOffice.org is a multiplatform and multilingual office suite and an open-source project. Compatible with all other major office suites, the product is free to download, use, and distribute.

Until now the software has required that users install the X11 Window System, a graphical interface that lets Unix-based applications work on Macs. The new version of the software won't require X11, and will work just like any other OS X-native application.

A huge collection of screenshots of the application running natively on a Mac are available on an OpenOffice developer website.

The release also seems likely to debut at OOoCon in Lyon, France, which runs between 11-13 September.
This is awesome news! WOOO HOOOO!!!
 

OzMo

macrumors member
Aug 13, 2006
33
0
Australia
Open Office Aqua timeline here. It looks like they're running about 12 months behind NeoOffice.

Approximate Date

September 2006
Present the current state of the project at the 2006 OpenOffice conference in Lyon

Late 2006
fix OpenOffice.org launch
fix drawing (repainting)
Implement missing methods and fix most important bugs (mainly the one leading to crash) in :
ATS
Salgraphics
Salinstance

January or February 2007
make Java work
make intensive debug
present something working as alpha

June 2007
Implementation of:
native filepicker
native printing
localization
 

theBB

macrumors 68020
Jan 3, 2006
2,453
3
OzMo said:
Open Office Aqua timeline here. It looks like they're running about 12 months behind NeoOffice.
Not only 12 months late, but they seem to rely on Java as well, just like NeoOffice. Java dependence was their most significant reason why they thought NeoOffice was not the proper way of creating a Mac native version.
 

Yannick

macrumors member
theBB said:
Not only 12 months late, but they seem to rely on Java as well, just like NeoOffice. Java dependence was their most significant reason why they thought NeoOffice was not the proper way of creating a Mac native version.
I could be wrong, but from my understanding, OOo for Mac doesn't and won't rely on Java more than OOo for other platforms. On the other side, Neo relies heavily on Java. Personally, I use both "OpenOffice.org 2.0.3" and "NeoOffice 2.0 Aqua beta 3" (based on OOo 2.0.3). Both have advantages and limitations.

NeoOffice's advantages:
- it uses native fonts (OOo uses fondu to extract the fonts and be able to use them, which duplicates them. Furthermore, when you want to use the document with Neo or OOo on windows, a 1 full page document may appear on 2 pages with 1 or 2 lines on the top of the second)
- it is more Mac friendly

OpenOffice.org for Mac using X11 has also some advantages:
- it opens quicker (I ran test on both on my PB G4 15" 1.5 GHz 1.5 GB RAM: OOo opens in 26 secondes the first time when even X11 is not launched, then OOo reopens in 6 secondes. Neo opens in 32 secondes the first time, then in 14 secondes after it has been closed)
- it uses less memory (OOo+X11: 87.15 MB real memory and 736.68 virtual. Neo: 218.35 MB real memory and 997.63 virtual)
- presentations transitions are way better handled than Neo (generally OOo tends to be faster than Neo, maybe due to this Java dependance?)
- it is the official OpenOffice.org, more up-to-date, is QAed, and the future of it doesn't rely only on two persons (as committed as they are, they are only human) but on a team.

It is indeed too bad that there are two separate projects, wasting in a sense time, energy and donations. It is the result of licence differences, technical approach differences, and miscommunication.
 

ezekielrage_99

macrumors 68040
Oct 12, 2005
3,336
16
That would be cool and more to the point about time. I thinks the X11 version was the reason most "average" users were put off from installing it.
 

theBB

macrumors 68020
Jan 3, 2006
2,453
3
Yannick said:
I could be wrong, but from my understanding, OOo for Mac doesn't and won't rely on Java more than OOo for other platforms.
I thought so as well, but Java is one of the few specific items on their "to-do" list. It seems like it is a not-so-insignificant component, but I could be wrong.

Yannick said:
NeoOffice's advantages:
You could add "native cut, copy, paste ability from other native Mac apps." There could be some printer abilities as well. I know I am missing more, but that's the first one to add that comes to my mind. BTW, can OpenOffice use the character palette?

Yannick said:
OpenOffice.org for Mac using X11 has also some advantages:
- it opens quicker
- it uses less memory
- presentations transitions are way better handled than Neo
- it is the official OpenOffice.org, more up-to-date, is QAed, and the future of it doesn't rely only on two persons (as committed as they are, they are only human) but on a team.
Yeah, Java makes things a bit slower.

You are right about the two-person team issue. The future of NeoOffice may not be all that bright, but their file formats are the same, so I can always switch to OpenOffice if that happens. By then, maybe OpenOffice will have its own Aqua Mac version as well.
 

janey

macrumors 603
Dec 20, 2002
5,319
0
sunny los angeles
benthewraith said:
Is it too much to ask for cocoa?
yes it is. i doubt that many people are willing to put in that much work regularly to keep up with OOo on other platforms. Particularly cause OOo is not for-profit, and the devs aren't being paid to volunteer their time to work on it.

Besides, what's so entirely wrong with Java? Why is it that everyone I see is always ragging on devs for using Java, instead of ragging on Apple's lackadaisical support of Java?

It's not a bad language, far from it. And in a situation like OOo (you know, MacOSX isnt the only platform out there) with like, a dozen ports for several different OSs and architectures, I can hardly see how OOo would fail to benefit from taking advantage of any multi-platform-compatible technology.