Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows
Home > Type > News > OpenOffice.org 3.0 is now available

OpenOffice.org 3.0 is now available

Oct. 13, 2008 Paul Thurrott | Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows

I like the idea of an alternative Microsoft Office suite a lot. That said, I’m not sure a huge fan of OpenOffice.org, and God knows I’ve tried. It just seems big, slow, and bloated to me, and they’ve moved too slowly to make it work like the underlying OS. What I’d like to see is something small, fast, and elegant, that offers the 10 percent of those features that 90 percent of Office users actually use day-to-day. Is there such a thing? I’ve never seen it. Anyhoo. The latest version of the software that’s here to punish people too poor to afford Microsoft Office—a.k.a. OpenOffice.org 3.0--is here. And by the way: 3 major releases in 8 years? Even Microsoft can hit that target. Projects like this should move more quickly.

OK, enough complaining. Here’s the announcement.

Following three years of continuous improvement, OpenOffice.org has now reached the landmark version 3.0, with a host of new features including native support for Mac OS X users. Head to http://download.openoffice.org to download the en-US, da, de, fr, it, ja, ru, sv versions, and monitor the platforms and languages page for details of the availability of other versions.

So what about those new features? Anything good?

I see native support for Mac OS X, a first, and that should be a big deal for those guys. It can import Office 2007 document formats and is compatible with ODF 1.2. And it’s got fresh new icons. Eh.

Discuss this Article 43

CompactDstrxion
on Oct 13, 2008
I use Office 2007 myself at home, but I don't think you can argue with OO.org while it's free! The Linux machines at my university currently use version 2.3, and I've never had any real problems with it. It had built in maths formula editing long before Office 2007 came out.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
CompactDstrxion "I don't think you can argue with OO.org while it's free!" Of course you can. A low price might make it a better value but it doesn't make it a better product.
runner7775
on Oct 13, 2008
I've always thought that OO.org was pretty good but when I got to college I got office 2007 because it lacks useful features(or are harder to acccess) that are present in 2007. The equation tools especially are much easier to use in 2007. But with that said, until college I used OO.org almost exclusively.
sharp65
on Oct 13, 2008
I downloaded it yesterday and tried it out for a few hours. It's not a bad alternative if you can't have office '07 or just want something free. I tried importing a docx that had some graphs/charts on it and it completely botched the document. It seemed to work ok when importing a document with just plain text. I don't really see it as a major alternative to office though.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
Gee. The OpenOffice people must not be open today. I keep getting told that I "don't have permission to access /servlets/ContentHelmNoodle" on their Apache server... (Actually, I'm guessing they overloaded their servers for their first new release after 3 years of "continuous improvement")
Mum
on Oct 13, 2008
Stupid clients always send pictures inside Powerpoint presentations and ask if "I can use those the publication". Using Office, no, I can't, because it doesn't let you copy and paste them into Photoshop in their original size, making them horribly distorted in the process. OpenOffice, however, lets you do that. (I haven't tried the latest Office version though.) A feature worth, say, 100$.
Ocean
on Oct 13, 2008
Open Office works great if you're a basic to intermediate user of Word. Ditto for the spreadsheet. I can't comment on the rest of the suite. Both it and MS Office have their plusses and minuses. Kinda like OS-X and Vista.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
Mum Out of curiousity, I checked to see if what you said really was broken in Outlook and PowerPoint. I did the following: Created a new PowerPoint 2007 presentation Embedded a picture Let PowerPoint resize it to fit the template (it scaled it down to 70%) Created a new mail message in Outlook 2007 to myself Attached the PowerPoint presentation Mailed it to myself Deleted the original PowerPoint presentation so I'd be sure to not confuse which version I had Saved off the presentation that I recieved from myself in the mail Opened the presentation Saved the picture that was in the PowerPoint It was saved at 100% scaling just like the original As they say on Mythbusters, Busted. Do I get that $100?
Master3
on Oct 13, 2008
It's free. That's the biggest selling point. Yes it is confusing, unpolished, and worst of all it is slow to load on Linux and Windows. There are better alternatives both on and offline that I believe are more worthwhile.
tayme
on Oct 13, 2008
I say that if there are people that find a use for OpenOffice...great for them. I agree that for many basic Word and Excel users, this may be adequate. Why should they spend the $20 - $149 or whatever to buy MS Office? --tayme
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
For that matter... I say that if there are people that find a use for WordPad...great for them. I agree that for many basic Word users, this may be adequate. Why should they spend the time to download and install OpenOffice?
tayme
on Oct 13, 2008
@Mike - You are correct, that addresses Windows users...there are users of other OSes that don't have WordPad or an equivalent simple word processor bundled with the OS. Choice is good... --tayme
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
tayme I'd revise that to be "choice is good if each choice adds something". (Not saying OpenOffice doesn't add anything, just clarifying an otherwise questionable platitude)
clindhartsen
on Oct 13, 2008
Personally, I used Open Office for years when I didn't have money to get Office as a kid, though I finally convinced my parents to invest in Office 2007 (student edition obviously) and it makes a whole lot of different to be honest. Even with some of the most basic operations, the transition between using Open and Word was a touch aggravating, some style elements being completely off and some not transferring at all. Still, for the college set, might I suggest a Google search for "The Ultimate Steal." While I already have a Vista laptop and purchased Home & Student Office a few months ago, you can get a great discount on the total Office suite (only 60 dollars) and Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade (only 70 dollars). I've been contemplating Ultimate, though I really don't have any need for it to be honest. Nonetheless, OpenOffice is free, and that's the only thing good about it by in large. Part of the issue is still file support, part of the issue is performance, part of the issue is if novice users get it and don't understand they have to save it in Word/PowerPoint/Excel formats, and part of the issue is just the point that it doesn't offer as much as MS Office.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
FYI: The Ultimate Steal info is at http://www.TheUltimateSteal.com
tayme
on Oct 13, 2008
@Mike - So, is it your belief that if Company A has a product and Company B develops a competing product that they have no right to market and distribute that product unless it adds something to Company A's original product. Who is the judge of that? I think that each and every consumer has the right to decide that for themselves. If that is your stance, then tell me...why do we have both Hammermill and Xerox selling paper? They both sell 8.5 X 11 paper in the same weights. What is the added value of one over the other? Usually it is cost...and like I said, that is good for the consumer. --tayme
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
tayme No. I think that if Company B's product adds nothing then all it adds is confusion. Adding something doesn't mean making a superset of Company A's product, it could be a version with less features that is more tuned to a specific market, it could be a difference in pricing model, it could be a single feature that Company B adds even if they lack others that Company A's product has. If the difference is too small, though, then what happens is just confusion in the market that ends up hurting the consumer since it makes it hard to tell what's good and what isn't. While that improves the odds for inferior products with better PR, it doesn't help the consumer or the industry. Two examples The vast number of Linux distributions makes it very difficult for all but the most dedicated Linux fan to find the best distro for their use so they pick distros based on popularity and name recognition even if it really isn't a good choice for their use. The vast number of shovelware apps (tip calculators, flashlights, etc) showing up in the iPhone store combined with limited ways to describe the differences makes it hard to tell which are actually better since the consumer gets tired of reading descriptions of yet another flashlight and just grabs one when they get tired of reading. Choice is usually good but not in every case.
Mum
on Oct 13, 2008
"Do I get that $100?" Sorry, no, but if you give me an additional 464$ I'll get a copy of Office 2007. Glad they got it right.
bobsil1
on Oct 13, 2008
> that offers the 10 percent of those features that 90 percent of Office users actually use Like MS Works? Didn't sell. The features people want in the last 10% are all different. You should know this by now. Look at all the features YOU want. I guarantee there are things nobody else cares about.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
Mum Gee, Office Standard Upgrade seems to have a street price of about $210 and has every product you mentioned. Subtract out the $100 that one feature is worth to you and you only need $110. So, what do you need the extra $354 for?
adamb1000
on Oct 13, 2008
Paul just a suggestion for that new navigation bar on your site: When you hover over a link on the bar it should indent like it looks like your pushing it like a button.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
Mum In fact, the street price of a full (not upgrade) copy of Office 2007 Ultimate is only $390 or so. I really am confused about what version of Office sells for $564.
Mum
on Oct 13, 2008
"It was saved at 100% scaling just like the original" That really was good info. Thanks a lot Mike!
Mum
on Oct 13, 2008
"I really am confused about what version of Office sells for $564." It costs more in Europe. And dollar's so low vs. euro. Come to think of it, I should book a few nights in NY and fly over to buy some software instead of getting it here. A free holiday!
DRWAM
on Oct 13, 2008
I got Office 2004 [Mac] 2008 upgrade for $50 after rebate, and my friend got the same rebate at Amazon and paid a total of $29 for the full upgrade to the Media version thingy. I just like MS Office better, especially Entourage with Exchange support. Office 2007 for WIndows, is what I prefer to OOO too. I like the IU better, But I did install OOO on a few freinds PC's that could not afford Office. They use it. It works. They are happy. So to each his/her own.
Dude1313
on Oct 13, 2008
Tayme- Why ask questions you already know the answer to? Choice is good... only when it leads to a Microsoft product, you should know that by know.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
Dude, So you're saying only Microsoft products add value? Wow. Even I wouldn't go that far.
Ocean
on Oct 13, 2008
The folks who are saying that its biggest plus is its cost or that its slow are thinking of previous versions of the suite or are being deliberately partisan. This is a three year old review that mirrors my own findings: >>Unlike the slow, ugly, and underpowered earlier version, 2.0 is swift, smooth, and highly compatible with Office documents.<< http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1851001,00.asp
Ocean
on Oct 13, 2008
Only the most complex documents will not open cleanly under OO, and if you work with those, you should buy MS O. According to anecdotes I've read, the only thing its not working extremely well with are the .docx files.
wilbertnl
on Oct 13, 2008
How about the free Softmaker Office 2006? http://www.softmakeroffice.com/
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 13, 2008
Interesting comment on "open standards" in Ocean's comment. They've got support for Microsoft's old, proprietary format working fine but they can't get Microsoft's fully documented "open standard", XML based format working even though it's been out almost as long as they've been working on this version.
Ocean
on Oct 13, 2008
The Office Suite works well, and I'd encourage everyone to try it for themselves and on their own documents.
gorath
on Oct 13, 2008
Ocean, I have to concurr with others on here that OO is very slow to load. I tried it most recently about 6 months ago, and it was still the case. I have no problems with it as software, though, and I frequently reccomend it to people who probably don't need all of MS office. I also used OO myself for a number of years, until work-related issues meant I needed MS office.
Ocean
on Oct 13, 2008
Heres another I came across on reddit: >>To be clear: If you are considering buying a commercial office suite, don't do it until you have given OpenOffice.org a shot. That's particularly true of the new version, which was released today. OpenOffice.org 3.0 is a significant upgrade and, again, is completely free. If, after using it for a while, you don't think it meets your needs, you can always uninstall it and buy a commercial product. But I suspect most users will find it's more than adequate for their needs, and the price can't be beat. Taking the time to give it a test drive could save you a bundle. -- The polish and new capabilities of OpenOffice.org 3.0 make this a winner. << http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2008/10/openofficeorg_becomes_a...
bettieblu
on Oct 13, 2008
Slow...Office 2007 is slow as well. I down graded my work PC from 2007 to 2003 because 2007 is so slow. This is on a Windows XP T61 notebook with 2GIG of ram. I have lots of word docs and spread sheets, none very large all used daily with information I use a lot. Opening Word 2003 vs 2007 is night and day different. OO is good enough but with out 100% office compatibility is will force people to pirate MS Office or buy student version when they dont qualify. MS has document lock and no one wants to go through mass conversion if they dont have to. Oh Office 2008 is the slowest Office hands down.
DRWAM
on Oct 13, 2008
MS Office 2007 is not slow on my cheapo $400 laptop... Jeepers, I love talking about it until you're all ill! It makes more business for me. I just did not care for the OOO UI. Office 2007 took time to like, but I like it. BTW, Vista SP1 setup with my wireless g network pretty darn well, and shared USB printer on an XP box too...on my cheapo $400 laptop:)
gorath
on Oct 13, 2008
Bettieblu, I have only used office 2007 on very fast workstations, so I can't really comment, although it did load very quickly on those machines, just like everything else did. Currently, I'm running officeXP and outlook2003, and both fire up very very quickly compared to OO. This is only my experience though, your mileage may vary, as they say.
CompactDstrxion
on Oct 13, 2008
2007 is slow on certain operations for me. For example inserting a footer, the templates for the footer take absolutely ages to load.
DRWAM
on Oct 13, 2008
Gorath, my cheapo $400 laptop has a Core Duo T3200 2GHz CPU. It's not a Core 2 Duo, and certainly is not slow with Office 2007. Did I say it was only $400? Bad news, Paul the fish died. It was one of my favorites. Since I was a little bummed out, I bought 3 small goldfish that I believe are Sarasa comets, and again named one Paul. I had to pick two more names, so I picked the guys that posted more help for me, so please don't be offended if you were not chosen. The chosen ones were Mike and Waethorn. You have been [temporarily] immortalized in my personal mini fish tank [the kids have their own]. They are small, but healthy. What do you want for 12 cents each? I wil get more, so you too can be part of the collective if you post help for me. What an honor, eh?
PatriotB6007
on Oct 13, 2008
I'm permanently biased against OpenOffice due to a terrible experience I had with StarOffice (commercial predecessor of OpenOffice) back in one of the Solaris labs in college 6 years ago. I had a spreadsheet containing I believe 32K rows (the max) and 2 columns of numerical data. I inserted a graph of the data. It took several minutes to create and draw the graph, and you could see the graph slowly draw itself on the screen. 475 MB of virtual memory was being used by the process. Saving to disk took several minutes. Eventually I gave up and used Excel 2002 on my own computer. It was lightning fast and used nowhere near as much RAM. One would hope that OO has improved since then, but that was such an awful experience that I frankly don't have any desire to even try it.
Delmont
on Oct 14, 2008
DRWAM: You go! I'm fed up with these Mac users coming here and telling me how Vista sucks and Vista blows and Vista crashes and now their new rant is because of this thread Office2007. And now according to them Office2007 sucks too. Well, like you I have a 5 year ( in 2 months ) old Dell Dimension 9100, 2gig ram, and Vista Enterprise and Office2007 run GREAT!
subzerohitman721
on Oct 14, 2008
I've used both StarOffice and OpenOffice.org for quite a few years when Microsoft Office was too costly in my college days. Both are very strong and rocksolid alternatives to MS Office, I just think the polish and dominance of MS Office makes it too hard to pass up. Granted there are other suites out there that all do a great job and OpenOffice.org is one of them. Also, there the free download part, which is great. However, MS Office is as ubiquitous as Band Aid brand for adhesive bandage. You mention an office suite in generic terms and 90% of folks think MS Office. Howevery, the reason why I've moved away from OpenOffice.org was that its performance in previous versions was terrible. Its dependancy on Java really doesn't help matters here. I've even read complaints about the net that this is still somewhat true even in 3.0. It will be interesting to see where the reviewers and benchmark testing justify this criticism. However, since our family has a nurse, dental assistant, IT professional, and many other jobs in professional organizations, OpenOffice.org is woefully insufficent in all these places that natively use MS Office. That wouldn't ever stop me from somebody who needed for a small business or for college. IMO, its right near MS Office but still a step or two behind it. However, if there is a major performance boost out of the newest version, I would proudly use it.
DRWAM
on Oct 14, 2008
I'm a Mac user too, but I am finding it hard to see a difference betwen the two OSes as an average user. However, I'm am very please that affordable options are available [with Vista] for those with low incomes, and the technology work very well. It's the consumer advocate in me.

Please or Register to post comments.

Related Articles

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use
Apr. 18, 2013
Article

What I Use: On the Road 21

Every so often, I publish an updated version of my “What I Use” document, which details the technology products and services I actually use day-to-day. Since I’m currently on my third business trip in five weeks, this is perhaps an ideal time to discuss the technology products I rely on when I travel and a few related points....More
Mar. 6, 2013
Article

What I Use: March 2013 33

Lots of changes since November, including a new PC-based home server running Windows 8, several new smart phones, new PCs and tablets, new cloud backup, Office 365 Home Premium and a nice doubling of my Internet speeds courtesy of Verizon FIOS....More
WinSuperSite.com
Related Penton Sites
Copyright © 2013 Penton Media, Inc