Linux.com

Feature: Reviews

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

By Bruce Byfield on September 11, 2007 (9:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Every few years, I check in on how OpenOffice.org Writer compares to Microsoft Word. The first comparison came in 2002, the second in 2005. In those two comparisons, OpenOffice.org emerged as superior, not least for its greater stability. With Microsoft Office 2007 now out for six months and OpenOffice.org 2.3 about to be released, what's the situation today? To find out, I compared the two programs on the tools that most intermediate to advanced users are likely to use.

The Interfaces

Dozens of keyboards must have been worn out in denouncing the introduction of ribbons in Microsoft Office 2007. At least one company now even offers a program to give Microsoft Office 2007 its former look. However, stripped of the hype, ribbons are nothing more than a merger of menus and toolbars, and anyone who keeps an open mind about change should be able to adjust to them for most purposes in less than 20 minutes. The main problem is not so much the idea of ribbons as the poor arrangement of items on them -- despite the effort to group related functions in one pane. Configuration options are difficult to find, and the arrangement of some functions seems completely arbitrary, with some that used to be in the File and Edit menus in a tab on the upper left, others on the far left and right sides of the Home tab, and still others dumped randomly on the Insert tab. Many users, I suspect, will miss the arrangement of some of the File and Edit items under the large logo button on the left of the ribbon area.

OpenOffice.org Writer 2.3 retains the look of the older versions of Microsoft Word that it originally borrowed from, with some borrowings from other programs and macros that have been integrated into the program. The result is chaotic, but it has the virtue of at least being familiar chaos. Instead of ribbons, it uses floating toolbars that pop up in the appropriate context. Although these toolbars sometimes spring into existence right where you are working, on the whole they are much less disruptive than a complete interface overhaul.

Verdict: OpenOffice.org, not because it is well-designed, but because Microsoft Word's changes seem pointless and upset users for no good reason.

Styles

Word processor styles are like declarations of a variable in source code: They allow you to save effort by doing work once instead of repeating it each time that you need it. With styles for characters, paragraphs, lists, frames, and pages, Writer remains one of the most style-oriented word processors available, often forcing users to apply styles in order to take advantage of advanced features. With floating styles and formatting window, Writer is one of the easiest programs in which to apply styles.

Microsoft Word 2003 toyed with its own floating style window, but in 2007, its developers opted for placing styles in the right half of the Home tab's ribbon. This arrangement displays a half dozen of the most common styles and a drop-down list of 10 more. These styles are further subdivided into style sets reminiscent of those used for templates in early Word versions, such as Elegant, Formal, and Modern. To change styles, you have to drill down several layers, while you create new styles via formatted selections in a document rather than from a menu choice. I appreciate the one-line previews of each style, but the overall result, as with the general interface, is a lot of cosmetic choices for no strong reasons. Meanwhile, the lack of page or frame styles continues to severely limit layout in Word.

Verdict: OpenOffice.org.

Page layout

Writer's page layout lacks only the ability to repeat a text frame on each application of a style to have the power of an intermediate desktop publishing program. Word, however, has little concept of the page as a design unit. Its Building Blocks, which include a number of different page layouts, is a step in the right direction, but the feature is far more rigid than Writer's page styles.

Verdict: OpenOffice.org.

Templates

Previous versions of Word lured users to corrupt their documents by applying multiple templates to them. Word 2007 seems to have removed that temptation by not providing an interface in which to apply multiple templates. In theory, this change should make Word files less prone to corruption, but only extended use will prove whether that is so.

Word installs with dozens of templates, with even more templates online, vastly outdoing the handful with which Writer ships. You can get dozens of free Writer templates online without any difficulty, but the mystery is why OpenOffice.org doesn't ship with them, or at least link to them, the way that Word does.

Verdict: Microsoft Word.

Outlining

Nothing has changed in outlining in either program: Word still has an Outline view with a collapsible tree view, and Writer still has a list of Headings in the Navigator floating window. Word's Outline view allows users to conceal individual headings, while Writer's Navigator only gives you the option of hiding headings beneath a certain level. Writer also requires some customizing of Tools -> Outline Numbering before the Navigator shows body text, while Word displays it by default.

Verdict: Microsoft Word. OOo Writer's outlining remains only adequate.

Bulleted and numbered lists

Word 2007 improves on earlier versions by providing a tool for setting up nested lists with a limited number of layout options. Otherwise, lists in Word 2007 remain prone to corruption when you start editing them unless you set up SEQ fields for numbering and design macros to apply them automatically. Nor does Word allow fine-tuning of such details as the space between a bullet and text, although you can define your own list styles.

Writer has not changed its implementation of lists in version 2.3, but it had little room for improvement. If you use list styles, you can nest lists and move list items around without the slightest problem, and edit their layout in detail.

Verdict: Despite some improvements in Word 2007, Writer is not seriously challenged.

Tables

Despite some serious limits in older versions of Writer, today both Word and Writer handle tables about equally well, providing similar features for creating tables and allowing the same range of formatting choices. In both cases, too, the formatting leaves something to be desired, with Writer's Autoformats being useful only for tables with the same numbers of rows as the applied format, and Word's table format being easily corrupted if you change the options on a particular table. Although some users like Word's tool for drawing a table, it is hardly an efficient tool, and is not much to weight against Writer's ability to implement basic mathematical functions and the convenience of its centralized formatting options. In Word, formatting always seems to involve drilling so far down into the dialogs that you forget your original purpose.

Verdict: Tie. Both could be improved.

Headers and Footers

For years, Word has been notorious for an awkward, pre-WYSIWYG tool for headers and footers. That tool finally hit the recycling bin in Word 2007, but what replaces it is only slightly better. Word 2007 not only defaults to four choices of header or footer, three of which are of dubious use, but is still limited to having different headers for the first, odd, and even pages unless you use sections in a document, and has only limited formats.

By comparison, in tying headers and footers to page styles, Writer allows for a greater variety of headers and footers with less effort. In addition, its headers and footers have more formatting options. It helps that footers and headers are individually defined styles in Writer.

Verdict: OOo Writer.

Footnotes and endnotes

Writer's notes are highly customizable in every aspect, from the text style to the design of the marker in the text to the separating line and whether continuation notices are used when a note flows over on to another page. Word's functionality is only basic by comparison.

Verdict: OOo Writer.

Cross-references

No point in belaboring the obvious: Writer's cross-reference tool continues to be arcane and usable only when some custom fields or macros are added to automate the process. Word's haven't changed much, either, but had less need to. Both would benefit from the ability to create and store introductory text in a cross-reference.

Verdict: Microsoft Word.

Indexes, tables of content, and bibliographies

Word's formatting of indexes and tables remains rudimentary compared to Writer. For instance, Word's designers never seem to have considered the possibility of more than one order in table of content entries, nor heard that leader dots between an entry's text and page number is a sign of faulty design. Writer's indexes and tables allow far more customizing, although at the expense of a slightly confusing or overwhelming interface.

Word's sole advantage is its ability to choose which standard citation formats to use automatically for bibliographies. You can set up Writer to use a particular citation format, but only by doing a lot of customization.

Verdict: OOo Writer -- but that doesn't mean that Writer couldn't improve its bibliographies.

Master documents

Master documents are collections of files that ease the editing of what would otherwise be long or large documents. For more than a decade, one word has been used over and over to refer to master documents in Microsoft Word: Don't. Over all the versions of Word in that time, master documents have been prone to crashing and corrupting their subdocuments. That hasn't changed in Word 2007.

For anyone who has struggled with Word's master documents, Writer's are a pleasant surprise. Easy to use and generally stable, the few times they do crash, they don't destroy the subdocuments.

The ironic part is, Word needs master documents, since it cannot reliably handle documents longer than about 40 pages. By contrast, Writer can handle documents hundreds of pages long, provided you have the necessary RAM to move through them efficiently.

Verdict: OOo Writer.

Drawing tools

With the release of version 2.0, Writer gained equality with Microsoft Word's tools for manipulating basic shapes, charts, and graphical text. Nothing has changed in the two applications' most recent versions.

Verdict: Tie. Possibly, the round might go to Word for a larger selection of integrated clip art.

Unique features

As in earlier releases, Word includes a grammar checker -- a mixed blessing, since it can encourage as much as correct errors, but still a feature that Writer lacks. In addition, Word 2007 includes research and translation links. Other unique features in Word includes a selection of options for displaying changes in a document, a split pane view for comparing two versions of the same document, and a multiple clipboard.

In comparison, Writer has few if any features not shared by Word. By default, it includes the export of files to PDF, but an add-on gives Word the same ability.

Verdict: Microsoft Word.

Conclusion

As in the previous two comparisons, Writer emerged as the winner in the majority of categories. However, in many categories, the decision is not as obvious as in previous comparisons. For the first time in several releases, Word's designers seem to be making significant changes. These changes are not always successful -- in fact, the reordering of menus into ribbons might be seen by the cynical as an attempt to hide some long-term embarrassments, such as the ongoing problems with master documents. But at least the effort is being made. Writer, by contrast, seems to be standing still, and some of its problems -- notably, cross-references -- are almost as long-neglected as some of Word's.

As free software, Writer has advantages that Word is unlikely to match -- its philosophy, its price, its easy availability, and its frequent updates. However, speaking only in terms of functionality, Writer seems to be coasting a little on its reputation. If that continues, its superiority may be eroded, or dissolved altogether.

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 198.240.213.26] on September 11, 2007 09:58 AM
Another advantage of OpenOffice.org Writer is that its document format, ODF, is open and well-specified. Probably most users don't understand why they should care about that - but they should.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 132.199.174.149] on September 11, 2007 01:02 PM
I do appreciate the fact that ODF is an open and well designed ISO spec. However, the available implementations of ODF (AbiWord, KOffice and the like) seem to disagree about the interpretation of the spec sufficiently to make document exchange a PITA. From a practical point of view it is more important to me that OO is available on several platforms. I can continue to edit files from my workplace Windoze box at home on my FreeBSD box. Couldn't do this with Word.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: The Chief on September 12, 2007 08:29 PM
Yes, I have used both, and I prefer Open Source.org

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: The Chief on September 12, 2007 08:41 PM
I still prefer OO writer to Word

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Nico on November 17, 2007 03:29 PM
I prefer using OO with my powerbook too ... i avoid to use MS products generally .... <a href="http://www.scheinschatten.de" target="_self" "title"Music and Movie Download">Nico</a>

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 121.115.255.186] on September 11, 2007 11:46 AM
All of this is interesting, but the reality is that those of us who work with files provided by our customers need perfect compatibility with Word, something that OO.o does not yet offer. I nearly went out of business because of the way Writer mangled Word documents.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 193.33.94.130] on September 11, 2007 12:38 PM
On the other hand, this week I have been grateful Open Office existed. I had to translate a 90-page MS Word document which had been heavily annoted with comments and track changes. In order to tranlate it, I accepted all changes and removed the contents, while the translation software converted it to .rtf and back (whithout altering the formating in any other way).

Using MS Word I was unable to further edit the document as after a few succesful saves it would invariably crash on save. After one day of frustration, I decided to use open office to edit the file. The resulting doc was stable and required only 10 minutes to restore the lost formating (the footer, the title numbering and alignment).

While I strongly dislike Open Office as too much of a MS Word clone, with its own problems in terms of features and interface, its stability with long and/or complex documents has been life saving feature. I would rather have a stable, functioning piece of software - even if ugly - instead of a fancy, feature-rich application, which only works in certain quirky ways and only up to a modest limit of complexity.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Jon Tyler on September 11, 2007 02:08 PM
You surely do not believe anyone will take you seriously on this. Number 1 - If you can not recognize deficiencies in your business, you can not blame Writer. Number 2 - I use Writer everyday to receive and send Word docs and have yet to have a document "mangled." I would like to know the exact situation in which his happens to you. Number 3 - If you are going to spread FUD, it is better to find an audience that doesn't know better.

#

Re(1): Mangled .DOCs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 58.69.228.16] on September 11, 2007 04:58 PM
I've found that Writer has trouble with Word's frames. They're often out of alignment. Same with drawing objects, they were off their original Word locations. Best to create things like organizational charts in another program then Paste (maybe Special).

#

Re(2): Mangled .DOCs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.252.40.128] on September 12, 2007 12:22 AM
Frames? Using a word processor to do desktop publishing is just asking for trouble. Right up there with using a spreadsheet as a database. Use the right tools for the job and you'll better stay in business. BTW - what DO you do that Writer almost put you out of business? Do you write tech docs for Microsoft or something?

#

Re(1): Incompatibilities (examples)

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 121.115.255.186] on September 12, 2007 12:55 AM
Jon, I' ve had all kinds of problems with Writer, which I've documented on a Linux list I started.
Here is the main quote:
Here is a summary of some compatibility issues I've encountered when
attempting to work with MS Office files in OpenOffice on Linux. As far
as I can determine, these are distribution-independent problems; that is,
they will bite you no matter what distro you are using.

1. Font substitution problems
The most serious problem comes with bullets and numbering fonts. For
some reason, OOo changes the fonts used in MS Word documents for bullets
and numbering. In some cases, the WingDings font is used. This is more
than a cosmetics issue; when the Word document is then transferred to
Windows and opened there, the font changes remain. If, for example,
"Appendix A-1" appeared in the original, it will now show only WingDings
symbols. Some numbers and bullets display as boxes or other symbols.

Obviously I can't submit such documents to customers and expect them to
change all the fonts back to the original. It might be possible to go
through all the settings and define different font substitutions, but
that just makes my job more tedious than it would be to use Word in the
first place.

2. Uneditable embedded objects
If the original PowerPoint slide has, say, an embedded chart that was
created in Excel based on numeric and text data, and I am asked to
replace the original Japanese in the chart with English, OOo apparently
lacks the ability to edit the original. In PowerPoint (Windows), it's
simply a matter of clicking on various parts of the chart and
replacing the original data.

3. Indenting
MS Office and OOo have different ways of using tabs to set indenting. In
some cases, this results in compatibility problems with numbered or
bulleted headings, etc., even when creating a document from scratch in
OOo.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 84.52.174.5] on September 11, 2007 08:52 PM
That's exactly why OpenDocument Format (ODF) is so important. To prevent format lock-in like you are experiencing now with Word files. ODF is completely open format and completely free and that's why everybody and anybody can provide proper support for it and this means that it is much more easy to select whichever application that supports ODF format to edit your documents.

#

Re(1): Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.197.106.70] on September 12, 2007 09:32 AM
Just like HTML is a completely open format and completely free. And as one can naturally see from HTML, everybody provides proper support for it and its display is consistent across a number applications and platforms.
...
</sarcasm>

#

Re(2): Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 84.52.174.5] on September 12, 2007 10:36 PM
Well it sure is much easier to provide proper implementation if the format is open like HTML and ODF. Not to mention it is more accessible to a wider range of implementors because it is really free and not endangered by patents. And another important thing about HTML and ODF is that the formats are developed by cooperation of a large number of companies, organizations and even some individuals. Current closed MS Office formats and the proposed OOXML format fail on all this points and OOXML is just another Trojan horse pretending to be an open format that is going to bring just more lock-in and restrictions and take away freedom from computer users all over the world. This is why it is so important to support OpenDocument Format (ODF). It's fighting for our freedom.

#

Re(2): Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.92.248.210] on September 13, 2007 11:54 AM
You are talking about M$'s implementation of HTML....
You can't blame the HTML-spec when Microsoft is trying, yet again, to fuck up a standard to lock people on their products....
M$ obviously thinks standards are such fun that everyone should have their own....

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Franky on September 11, 2007 12:01 PM
Since for Word you mention a PDF add-on, you should also be aware of a grammar plugin for OpenOffice (see http://www.languagetool.org/ ).
Of course it isn't always perfect, but it is a very good start.
[Modified by: Franky on September 11, 2007 12:01 PM]

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 74.141.214.92] on September 11, 2007 01:03 PM
What about tracking changes? Any comments on the two? This seems to be one of the biggest reasons OO has not easily integrated in a corporate environment.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 89.219.12.54] on September 11, 2007 04:21 PM
What's with tracking changes. AFAIK OOo does that more or less OK?

#

Re(1): Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 132.199.174.149] on September 11, 2007 04:53 PM
It does. I wrote several manuscripts together with a Word user and never ran into problems. So tracking changes does not just work, it even works with documents edited in Word.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 206.170.173.184] on September 11, 2007 04:47 PM
Tracking changes in Oo seems to have nice compatibility with word, but are simply not as pretty. I've used it with word documents with little or no issue before.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 208.57.86.144] on September 11, 2007 04:49 PM
I use change tracking with documents in OO all the time. I'm not sure what the perceived issue may be?

#

Re(1): Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 70.89.111.225] on September 11, 2007 11:24 PM
The biggest issue is cosmetic. I've had clients say no to OO because the interface is far clunkier. They are used to printing with the changes next to the text (similar to the way people would acutally markup changes) so they can take it into a meeting and discuss.

A big issue for lawyers.

#

Re(2): Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 74.141.214.92] on September 11, 2007 11:39 PM
I agree. While comment tags in the tracking theoretically in OO, they look horrible and do not display like they do in Word. To me, if they beautified some if this it would _bury_ Word. As it stands, the clunkiness is indeed a huge roadblock.....again, even though "it works".

#

Re(3): Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 121.44.204.53] on September 13, 2007 10:15 AM
Luckily there is a Google Summer of code project which aims to beautify and improve the usability of comments in openoffice. "Notes2" is aimed to be in the 2.4 release of openoffice. You can find info on it here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Notes2

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 201.1.173.32] on September 11, 2007 01:16 PM
Thought not yet available in English or Spanish, the CoCrOO Project has a good, working, Portuguese grammatical corrector plug-in for OO.o, now in it's second incarnation.
They are in need for expert consulting in the English and Spanish languages so as to adapt it to work in those languages. If anybody is in it for contributing, their list (Fórum) may be reached on their site: http://cogroo.sourceforge.net/index.html. You may post in English there.

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 76.17.191.115] on September 11, 2007 01:47 PM
To track changes, use Edit->Changes->Record to start recording changes. There are other options in there for viewing and merging changes.
http://www.tutorialsforopenoffice.org/tutorial/Change_A_Document_Red_Lining_Or_Tracking_Changes.html

Or you can look at the changes between two documents by going to Edit->Compare Document

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.80.34.124] on September 11, 2007 02:22 PM
I hate those fsckin pop-up floating toolbars in OO.o. If I wanted a toolbar covering part of the document I'm working on I can put one there. Of course it would lack the surprise value of suddenly popping up and obscuring my work but hey, you can't have everything. Rather than save time it creates extra work for me to close the damn things whenever they get in the way. I looked for a way to prevent that behaviour but it seems the functions are either forced on me or the ability to change it is hidden away somewhere so obscure that I'll never find it in a week of Sundays.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Micosoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 206.170.173.184] on September 11, 2007 04:48 PM
If you dock those popups to a toolbar, they'll pop up there rather than in your document proper. For some it's nicer that way.

#

Missing outlining

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 158.193.81.58] on September 11, 2007 02:36 PM
The outlining in OO is miserable, for me that is the key reason why I do not swich. For structured documents I work with most of the time the way how OO handles outlining is a DECISIVE minus.

#

Re: Missing outlining

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.24.125.200] on September 12, 2007 12:08 AM
Did you miss the part about styles in OOo? Outlines in OOo writer are much better than Microsoft Office.

#

Re(1): Missing outlining

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.210.249.184] on September 14, 2007 12:38 PM
"Outlines" != "outlining"

Word's outlining view has no counterpart in OOo, and it is pretty crucial for long document authoring.

#

Re(2): Missing outlining

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 145.53.74.162] on September 14, 2007 02:45 PM
When I try to look up outlines and outlining in both Word 2007 and OOo 2.4: In both of them it is about the possibilty of promoting and demoting paragraphs and the thereto pertaining styles.
What is outlining according to you??

regards,
Peter Paul Jansen
The Hague, The Netherlands

#

IBM's contributions to OOo: Comments?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 207.228.164.137] on September 11, 2007 03:59 PM
IBM has announced it's joining OOo and making significant code contributions. Any thoughts on how that's going to affect this comparison in the next iteration?

#

Re: IBM's contributions to OOo: Comments?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 84.52.174.5] on September 11, 2007 08:54 PM
I guess this is a great step and will only make OpenOffice.org even better. Great step IBM. Many companies could learn from you.

#

Re: IBM's contributions to OOo: Comments?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 131.216.164.112] on September 26, 2007 11:47 PM
Considering that IBM is responsible for the piece of garbage known as Notes -- the absolute worst email client known to man, with the least usable interface -- I don't see this as a positive turn of events.

#

Re(1): IBM's contributions to OOo: Comments?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: unknown] on October 04, 2007 02:14 AM
If you look at the mess eclipse has ended up in as a java development env I would be worried. It has bloat and crawls and has become completely useless as an actual dev env. Seems to keep pandering to a lot of hype and I had to switch back to 3.1.2 after switching 3.2.1 then 3.3 and attempting several versions in between.

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 129.34.20.23] on September 11, 2007 04:22 PM
On the subject of bibliographies, evaluating the built-in tools is sort of beside the point, because neither has even adequate functionality. However, if you use Word, you can use EndNote, which is extremely powerful, and more importantly has at least in the academic world become the standard. One of the main things preventing me from dropping Word entirely is the fact that EndNote doesn't work with OpenOffice/ODF, and I have collaborators who insist on Word (left to my own devices, I prefer latex/bibtex for research articles, etc).

#

Bibliographies & Citation Integration

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 129.105.37.63] on September 11, 2007 06:23 PM
On the subject of bibliographies, evaluating the built-in tools is sort of beside the point, because neither has even adequate functionality.
I agree that both are lacking. The format of embedded citations is worth mentioning. OOXML has a finalized model. ODF doesn't. ODFs model will hopefully be better than MS Word's, but kudos to MS to actually implementing something.
However, if you use Word, you can use EndNote, which is extremely powerful, and more importantly has at least in the academic world become the standard.
Endnote is popular, but hardly ubiquitous. Many academics use LaTeX still. Even those who don't have a wealth of programs to choose from to manage citations (unfortunately, many of the popular ones are all commercial/proprietary garbage from ISI). And there are still A LOT of researchers who just do this whole thing manually.

Endnote sucks. It is an expensive solution that has poor compatibility with different versions & yet simultaneously has a bad data model. <a href="http://bibus-biblio.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page">Bibus</a> and <a href="http://www.zotero.org/">Zotero</a> are free and open source & work with both MS Word and OO.o Writer.

#

Re: Bibliographies & Citation Integration

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.192.213.199] on September 12, 2007 05:07 AM
I hate to disagree, but bibus is a pain to work with compared to endnote - I tried to write a journal article and it just took way too much time...

#

Re: Bibus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.34.17.86] on September 12, 2007 02:33 PM
Care to elaborate? I agree that bibus is tedious to get setup correctly on some platforms (but you only have to do it once per machine). It is also not as good for searching collections (but you can easily import files into it). Once it is setup, it can put citations into MS Word and OO.o Writer as efficiently as Endnote.

Zotero may be even smoother--it has a more limited number of citation styles at this time, but it is quite good about scraping reference metadata off the web.

#

Re(1): Bibus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.210.249.184] on September 14, 2007 12:40 PM
That Zotero has a more limited of styles is a temporary situation. Bibus uses the same very limited key-value data model as ODF 1.0; Zotero supports a wider range of citation sources.

#

Re: Bibliographies & Citation Integration

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.61.79.146] on September 12, 2007 06:37 PM
The use of Endnote vs. LaTeX varies in academia depending on the field of endeavor. My colleagues in Computer Science and Physics always talk about LaTeX. In Information Systems (my field of endeavor) though, Endnote is the most popular choice. The document format used by Endnote is horribly incompatible across its own versions and the "Cite while you write" feature works in select versions of MS Office. Repeated requests from me to make Endnote compatible with OO.o have gone unheard by Endnote's makers. I've looked at Bibus, and yes, its a pain to set up. Maybe a week or two with it, and I'll be set. I'll have to take Zotero out for a spin sometime soon.

#

Re(1): Bibliographies & Citation Integration

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 81.97.21.90] on October 23, 2007 05:52 PM
I'm a phd student in law, so not a computer whizzkid, and decided not to use office or endnote (£££!). I use openoffice and bibus, I didn't find bibus a pain to set up, in fact I thought it was very easy. I'm really pleased with bibus!

#

Ribbons are good

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 216.229.170.227] on September 11, 2007 04:34 PM
I normally hate Office, but ribbons are far superior to menus, even with poor organization.

Great article!

#

Versions

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 58.69.228.16] on September 11, 2007 05:02 PM
I haven't used Word in some time (2001?) so I wouldn't know if you can save different versions of the doc in the same file. Writer's versioning has saved my ass a significant number of times.

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 211.11.148.2] on September 11, 2007 08:28 PM
boolshit

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.89.60.46] on September 11, 2007 11:53 PM
What? OO.o is actuall a very decent piece of software.

#

Re(1): Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 67.64.136.30] on September 12, 2007 06:59 PM
It is, but this article seems to focus on avoiding the shortcomings of OO.o and finding as many shortcomings of Word 2007 as possible.

I would (and did) use OO.o as a (mostly) viable replacement to MSO all the way up 'til 2003. 2007 is the first version that's pulling me back to M$. I really find it to be a superior offering to OO.o in near every way but price (and still, $250 or so for 3 licenses is cheap, compared to previous versions)

#

About MS Word headers & footers

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.195.0.168] on September 11, 2007 09:17 PM
The article says "has only limited formats" - what is meant by this? I've been able to put entire (small) tables into Word headers & footers since Word 2000, and I suspect that would work in Word 97, too. I'm not saying that Word handles this better than OOo, just wondering what limitations the author encountered.

- T

#

Office software shootout: Word's Grammar checker still fails the grade

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 209.217.118.25] on September 11, 2007 09:57 PM
What MS provides is a grammar checker that assumes you have no more than a grade 8 education in the U.S. This might be appropriate to Americans, but it is not acceptable to those of us living in other English speaking countries in the world. As an example, the daughter of one of my friends used Word's grammar checker to check her assignments, only to lose grades from her high school teacher over the use of poor grammar. By not having a grammar checker, Writer actually forces the user to know their own language. When forced to not use the grammar checker, my friend's daughter did much better. Sometimes no tool is better than a defective tool. My apologies for being an idiot.
[Modified by: Anonymous on September 11, 2007 11:13 PM]

#

Re: Office software shootout: Word's Grammar checker still fails the grade

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.165.99.130] on September 11, 2007 11:39 PM
There's an "Ignore" button for a reason. Computers are not people.

#

Re: Office software shootout: Word's Grammar checker still fails the grade

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 117.102.132.20] on November 15, 2007 01:12 AM
What a hilarious comment - let's have no spell checker to make us better spellers and no styles to make us think about changing text formats manually etc etc?
This whole essay is one of the most biased articles I have ever read.
I use MS because Open Office sucks in many ways - pretty good for free software but that is it.
I even use MS word through WINE under linux because that is the only wayto guarantee your formatting won't be lost between saves or distribution.
Simple things like losing the tab space between numbered heading levels and all your embedded pictures dissappearing to name a few!

#

Excel integration

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 129.210.210.141] on September 11, 2007 10:23 PM
Something that I used to love about word (but don't use any more as I am an OOo user) was the integration with Excel. Tables are terrible in word, but as of 2003 (i believe) you can embed an excel spreadsheet in a word document and actually have a useful table. I haven't seen that OOo writer has the same functionality with Calc. My hope is that someone will correct me and then I will be very happy, but otherwise I'd say Word wins on tables.

Also, I'm waiting for the day when KOffice overtakes all offerings from Microsoft and Adobe (KOffice word, spreadsheet, krita, karbon14 over MS Word, excel, adobe photoshop, and illustrator). But that day is far away : (

#

Re: Excel integration

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 70.53.206.180] on September 12, 2007 02:34 AM
Calc integrates perfectly in Writer, Presentation or Draw. Select your Calc table and simply paste it in any Writer document. You may also do a paste special as a GDI component, this way you loose the calc fonctionnalities but the objet you are pasting is vectorial so that you may resize it the way you want.

Finaly, for a great surprise, do this test: open a blank draw page, in the menu choose Insert -> Speadsheet (I guess it must be the right word as I use a french version of OOo) and voilà, you ended with a spreadsheet you can move freely in your sheet. You may then add any text, vector drawing, bitmap picture, mathematical formula, move them, rotate them, use multiple layers, etc. Don't forget that every part of OpenOffice.org shares 90% of the code, that's integration!

#

Re: Excel integration

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 69.53.81.102] on September 12, 2007 03:02 AM
A couple of years ago I was doing some estimates for my boss and used just this trick. I created the calc spreadsheet, and embedded it into a writer document. Then when I started typing in the spreadsheet cells the tool bars at the top changed to the calc tool bars. The only problem with this combination was that my boss believed in MS Office and considered Open Office to be a cheap toy. So, I exported the document in Word .doc format and checked it on his machine and discovered that the text document was indeed in word format (exactly matching the original document). However, the embedded spreadsheet was another matter completely. The original embedded spreadsheet was evidently there -- in the original calc format, and a graphic image of the spreadsheet which could be easily read and printed, but which could not be edited.

#

"In those two comparisons, OpenOffice.org emerged as superior"???

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.169.78.153] on September 11, 2007 10:45 PM
How is that possible that OpenOffice.org emerged as superior in 2002?

I'm afraid your comparison is biased in favor of OpenOffice.

#

Re: "In those two comparisons, OpenOffice.org emerged as superior"???

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 213.173.236.120] on September 12, 2007 10:21 AM
Exactly! Open Office in 2002 was complete and utter crap in every single way!
It's a lot better today, but not even close... But then again - The Linux "side" has always been just as good with HEAVILY biased articles as they claim others to be - Although this is one of the worst I've ever seen!

#

Re(1): "In those two comparisons, OpenOffice.org emerged as superior"???

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 141.89.176.41] on September 14, 2007 09:30 AM
I remember well that already around 2000, StarOffice (which was not OpenOffice.org yet) was in some ways superior to Word.
Like handling large documents. The placing of figures went a lot better.
I was able to compare that during the time I had to use Word 97 (or 2000, not so sure anymore) at work.
What MS word did better (for me) was handling of serial letters with stuff pulled from a database.

Note that I am no particular OpenOffice fan; actually I don't like the concept of blown-up "Office software" at all.
I had to work with MS Word for some time, I did private/school documents with StarOffice / OpenOffice.org ... but I'm glad that I found better tools for my needs.
When you do math stuff and lots of figures in documents ranging to 100 or more pages, you are better off with something that takes care of page layout and typesetting properly, with the possibility but not the requirement for you to step in and do grunt work.

#

"grammar checker -- a mixed blessing"???

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.169.78.153] on September 11, 2007 10:49 PM
You're so biased against Microsoft Office that your comparison loses credibility.

#

Re: "grammar checker -- a mixed blessing"???

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 213.173.236.120] on September 12, 2007 10:22 AM
Exactly! Open Office in 2002 was complete and utter crap in every single way!
It's a lot better today, but not even close... But then again - The Linux "side" has always been just as good with HEAVILY biased articles as they claim others to be - Although this is one of the worst I've ever seen!

#

Re: "grammar checker -- a mixed blessing"???

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 131.216.164.112] on September 26, 2007 11:49 PM
The article may be biased, but not when it comes to the grammar checker, which is just crap.

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 76.237.33.190] on September 11, 2007 10:52 PM
I just last week started using MS Office 2007 for some work. Personally, I'm extremely happy with the ribbons. I found it generally much easier to find commands I wanted than with menus in either MS or Open Office (I confess I'm not a heavy user of either, so I don't have lots of existing work habits disrupted by this change). Since I like these things, I naturally tend to think this is a great strategic move by Microsoft, since I suspect it will serve them well in the long run. Kudos to the managers and engineers who had the guts and vision to make such a big change. And my sympathies with the scads of users who must go through the transition to learning these.

#

EndNote and ReferenceManager

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 84.57.122.55] on September 11, 2007 10:59 PM
The major advantage of Microsoft Office is availability of different plug-ins, like EndNote and ReferenceManager, which are 'must' for scientific writing.

#

Re: EndNote and ReferenceManager

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.162.36.171] on September 12, 2007 12:05 AM
Zotero is better, better than EndNote anyway, and it has plugins for both MS Word AND OOo Writer. Also, Zotero works with Linux as well as Windows and OS X.
http://www.zotero.org/
http://www.zotero.org/videos/tour/zotero_tour.htm

#

Re(1): EndNote and ReferenceManager

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.162.36.171] on September 12, 2007 12:35 AM
Even better, some links:

<a href=http://www.zotero.org/>Zotero</a>

<a href=http://www.zotero.org/videos/tour/zotero_tour.htm>Zotero tour</a>

#

Re: EndNote and ReferenceManager

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.93.152.63] on September 12, 2007 12:11 AM
I would argue that latex and bibtex are a must for "scientific" writing. Word & Writer are excellent for making fliers...

#

Re: EndNote and ReferenceManager

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 129.105.37.63] on September 12, 2007 12:21 AM
Bullshit. See comment above about how much these programs suck. Use Zotero or bibus.

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 76.214.204.154] on September 11, 2007 11:27 PM
I also must differ with the author on the subject of the interfaces, specifically the menus/ribbons. While complaining that the placement of items on the ribbons is "random", the author calls the OOo Writer interface "chaotic" and "familiar chaos". Apparently he didn't use Word long enough for the items on the ribbons to become "familiarly random". And while mentioning the floating toolbars in Writer, he fails to mention the presence of similar floating toolbars in Word, which in the 2007 version have a much more streamlined implementation than previous versions. This portion of the review is obviously skewed towards OOo because of the author's familiarity with the product and for no other reason.

#

Re: Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.92.93.125] on September 12, 2007 12:02 AM
The ribbons are crap. As always, it is Microsoft's attempts to pretty up their software without adding functionality. Look at Vista. It's really XP SP3 with a new interface and more harrowing attempts at security controls, at 50-100% more the cost of XP.

#

Notes, notes, notes

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 128.200.138.188] on September 11, 2007 11:31 PM
This is one area where OOo has still not caught up. MS Word handles notes very well, allowing them to appear in the margins (both on the screen and printed out). OOo notes feature is TERRIBLE. The notes dialog doesn't word wrap, you cannot print notes or view them on the screen without opening each individual dialog, and the note icon is hard to see. OOo says their working on it...

#

Re: Notes, notes, notes

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.24.125.200] on September 12, 2007 12:14 AM
Except for word wrap, the notes seems to work well, and yes you can print them. Please update your OOo version from 1....

#

Re(1): Notes, notes, notes

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 89.142.55.152] on September 12, 2007 09:40 AM
Where can you enable displaying of notes?

#

Displaying Notes (Comments) in Writer

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 82.131.17.177] on September 15, 2007 03:38 PM
Show non-printed characters. Also use Writer's Navigator feature to track down Notes.

#

Office software shootout: OpenOffice.org Writer vs. Microsoft Word, round three

Posted by: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA on September 11, 2007 11:37 PM
The article misses the important point that OOo updates much oftener. It is not that OOo updates slower, it is that its changes are more incremental. All in all OOo has been evolving much faster, and this kind of feature criticism can only help, specially if enough people care enough to echo it.

#

Worst... Article... Ever

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.169.78.153] on September 11, 2007 11:46 PM
If Microsoft published an article like that, people would be calling it FUD.

#

Re: Worst... Article... Ever

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 63.80.71.240] on September 12, 2007 01:16 AM
Wow....what a helpful comment !

#

Re(1): Worst... Article... Ever

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 217.154.153.2] on September 12, 2007 01:09 PM
I think it's pretty helpful.

The article reads to me as follows:

"I use OO all the time, and Word 2007, which I've haven't spent anything like the same time on, doesn't work the same way as OO, and is therefore bad. Except in the places where even *I* can't find fault"

Most of the "Word 2007 is no good and can't do this or that" - e.g. all the stuff about not being able to format bullets - is just plain wrong and makes this comparison very one sided.

#

Use LaTeX

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.31.157.131] on September 11, 2007 11:56 PM
The only thing that I use Openoffice is to read something that some cretin has sent me in .doc format. If you want to make nice documents then use LaTeX. It's as simple as that. Things like cross-referencing, headers & footers, bibliographies, indices and page styles are all BULLET-PROOF in LaTeX. OK, so you can't easily draw diagrams and stuff in LaTeX (although it's possible), but then you shouldn't be doing that in a word processor either. If you want to do something like drawing diagrams or editing/resizing pictures and the like then you should use a program that is designed to do that, not a work processor that has some basic drawing functionality that is going to screw up on you at the first opportunity. If you want to do a professional job of page layout for publications, with a lot of text wrapping around pictures and at funny angles and funky styles etc, then you probably should use a professional layout package for that, not a word processor. I recommend Scribus, it's good, free and open source. Basically, I don't think that there is any place for WYSIWYG word processors. OK, so they do an OK job of a whole bunch of things, but there is always a proper way of doing the thing that you're trying to do and the program for doing that will do it a heck of a lot better. Don't get me wrong, I'm not rubbishing Writer (or Word, for that matter), they're both very good programs, I just think that they're pointless. I'd just like to be clear that this view is not extended to the whole of Office/Openoffice I think that the other bits definitely have some worthwhile functionality.

#

Re: Use LaTeX

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 60.241.225.254] on September 12, 2007 12:33 AM
Amen to that. Your experience is identical to mine. To me the relevance of Word is nil because it doesn't work on Linux and it doesn't open ODF documents. For all original documents I use LaTeX. For fancy page layouts I use Scribus. Whenever some moron sends me a Word document I immediately convert it to ODF if I need to edit it, or PDF otherwise. That way I can still read these documents years later.

#

Re(1): Use LaTeX

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 60.48.155.18] on September 12, 2007 09:03 AM
I have similar experience too. LaTeX is extremely superb for doing cross-referencing, table of contents, indexing, etc... I use LyX sometimes for a GUI for latex. I'm ok with open office and use it occasionally. Word is N.A. to a linux user like me. I've not touched it for many years.

#

Re(2): Use LaTeX

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 217.15.107.200] on September 12, 2007 10:47 AM
Don't get me wrong, LaTex is perfect and I often recommend to colleagues and students to try related tools such as linuxdoc/sgml tools to help them in their documentations and technical papers. The issue here really is that a word processor brings allows a non computer tech savvy person to create documents with ease in a WYSIWG environment. So I don't see why you should bring up LaTeX into the mix here. It is irrelevant in the context of this issue.

#

Re(3): Use LaTeX

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.34.17.86] on September 12, 2007 02:43 PM
First: there are "non computer tech savvy persons" who still use stand-alone word processors & typewriters. And some of these people learned on WordPerfect 4.2. Don't underestimate their abilities to work with ugly interfaces!

Second:There are WYSIWYM GUI processors for LaTeX.

#

Re(3): Use LaTeX

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 137.222.42.193] on September 12, 2007 04:49 PM
I think that you underestimate how long it takes to learn how to use a WYSIWYG word processor PROPERLY. I think that it is probably about the same amount of time that it takes to learn LaTeX properly. What I would say is that WYSIWYG word processors do allow one to fudge together some kind of document with a shorter learning time. However, this is not necessarily a good thing. I think that many of the complaints about opening word documents in Writer and things losing format in strange ways etc are due to the fact that anyone can just start typing away in a word processor without much clue of what they're doing and end up with something that looks sort of what they want (on THEIR screen, at least). What they might not appreciate is that lining things up with tabs, spaces and carriage returns is not how things should be done as it conveys NOTHING about the desired structure of the document to the computer. Thus, when I open this thing up on OOo Writer it's all over the shop because the program has very little idea of what its supposed to be doing. This is not something that can be sorted out with any document format since (as the old programming saying goes) put rubbish in, get rubbish out. What word processors have been (and always will be) guilty of is encouraging some very bad habits in both document structure and typesetting. LaTeX, intimidating as it might be to new users, has none of these faults and produces far better results as a consequence.