| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
IBM Throws Out Microsoft Office | |
|
||
| Time: 16:03 EST/21:03 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
360,000 IBM workers have been told to stop using Microsoft Office and switch to the Open Office-based software Symphony. Quoting an inside source, the German economic newspaper, “Handelsblatt” reports that staff at IBM have been given ten days to change to Symphony, IBM's in-house Lotus software. The use of Microsoft Office will in future require managerial approval. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 285 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:35:46 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 9/18/2009 5:13:28 PM |
| To what extent is Symphony based on OpenOffice (besides supporting ODF)? Lotus has had an office suite for years that was a competitor to OpenOffice, and it looks like the current product is based more on that than OpenOffice.... |
| #2 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at 9/18/2009 11:19:50 PM |
| The new Symphony is a highly modified OpenOffice. IBM's been playing with it for a couple of years. Here's a link to a two year old article on the subject: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/article.php/3703501 |
| #3 By 236329 (58.173.132.231) at 9/19/2009 5:18:38 AM |
|
Wow where do these stories come from, first the one saying Bill Gates got it right with his tablet prediction because of the iphone,
and now this non sense. IBM will Never abandon MS Office while it still has customers that use it. How are IBM employees supposed to interact with their customers? Send them an OS2 disk with Lotus Smartsuite for WINOS2 so their customers can read the IBM proposals? LOL! |
| #4 By 15406 (99.240.76.72) at 9/19/2009 8:08:20 AM |
| #3: OpenOffice can read & write Doc and ODF. MS Office can read & write DOC and ODF. What's the problem again? |
| #5 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 9/19/2009 9:34:08 AM |
|
#4, There very significant formatting issues that persist and render exchanges impossible.
In the real-world where for example, thousands of discovery documents are exchanged between law firms, firms supporting them with specialized services, accounting firms, and expert witnesses, it simply DOES NOT WORK. Customers of ours ply these waters each day and they are big international firms working with hundreds of different firms we also have to support to enable the entire process and collaborations that are continuous. We've supported this type of work for over a decades and we've seen the same issues as new versions of software have shipped. Office 2007 with its defaults set to docx, xlsx, pptx, etc... were as much of a challenge. As bad as that can be, ODF is even worse and most especially where excel spreadsheets are concerned. The problem is that your assertion is simply not accurate - it isn't that simple. |
| #6 By 17855 (98.156.78.242) at 9/19/2009 9:59:32 AM |
| #5 That may be true. The interesting thing though, if you migrate your organization to a new platform that you develop in house then you will need to fix those issue quickly. Accelerating development. I do not see Symphony dethroning MS Office, but I would like to see better compatibility and IBM should have the resources to pull that off. |
| #7 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 9/19/2009 10:57:45 AM |
|
#6
I am still baffled by the concept of compatibility. Apple has made a multi-billion dollar business out of not being compatible. I think Apple has got this one right. It is only important that all of one companies apps work seamlessly together on its hardware. Not whether they play well with others. The reason that MS got where it is today is because they became a dominant market force that forced everybody to play by their rules. This is a good thing. A very good thing. I remember when this was not so. IBM ruled the roost and it was bad, very bad. |
| #8 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 9/19/2009 12:09:16 PM |
|
#'s 6/7
Don't get me wrong... MS does try; however there are enough formatting differences that documents do not make it across all platforms well at all. This is most especially true of spreadsheets and it matters a great deal. Tons of lost time and money are the result and all sides screaming in the meantime: "Just do it/send it, in Office 2003 format!" ........ and PDF is even worse. There is the appearance of compatibility, but among so many means to generate it, they often complex documents are lost in translation. Same drill for ODF - however bad the issues are among office versions, ODF is far worse. and finally... the only format that has a prayer of being truly useful in the context of distributed connected systems and applications is MS's open standard for XML - now an ISO. They are the only player with enough coverage and until people embrace that fact, too little progress will be possible and the full potential of distributed document management and collaboration will languish in the present deprecated state. |
| #9 By 54556 (69.254.149.110) at 9/19/2009 12:43:04 PM |
| OO works fine for my primary business and a couple other businesses that are owned by friends and that I assist from time to time. Has for a couple of years now. Started using OO back for new workstation deployments when MS started releasing new versions that changed the interface more to sell than to offer usefull features. For those users that want to stay on MS office (most of them), I let then run their old MS software; it causes no significant problems (exchange format is locked for all platforms) , but do I have then back at Office XP/2000/2003 levels, I won't buy more recent versions (well, technically I do with volumn licensing but we run version downgraded). Its amusing how only the MS propaganda machine present here seems to have problems... |
| #10 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 9/19/2009 7:23:03 PM |
|
#9
OO is for loosers. Its a dead end and I don't get why everybody hasn't figured that out yet. If for some unknown reason you can't afford a legal copy of Office. Then by all means invest in a reasonably fast data connection and use a free online alternative. OO will not be in development more than a few more years when everybody figures out that it is stupid. If you don't like MS for some reason use Google's version of office. There will only be two left standing at the end of the day. Two companies make all the graphic chips, two companies make all the CPU chips. Eventually the same will be true with motherboards and software. Computers need standards and standards are not made in a committee. They are made by some large despotic forces (Governments, multi-national corps etc.) The universe is not about good v. evil; it is about chaos v. order. |
| #11 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 9/19/2009 9:45:18 PM |
|
#10 Yep. Clearly spoken by a man that faces a payroll every two weeks.
It is what it is. |
| #12 By 54556 (69.254.149.110) at 9/19/2009 11:51:48 PM |
| Go ahead. Keep on trying to impress your children followers. Its all you've ever done here. If olddog actually ran a company he'd understand about controlling expenses in this economy. His statements had absolutely nothing to do do with business... And BTW, since you're pulling that same front of the paycheck headgame that you were pulling a year ago, I sign more than 150 biweekly. Pull the others on off-weeks that get 1099ed. You really need to get some new lines... |
| #13 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 9/20/2009 12:34:54 PM |
|
#12
I respect the fact that you are an employer. I still think that most will migrate to online versions of common business software as they have at least as many features as OO and the added advantages of portability (As a result OO will die). In those businesses that exchange information with other businesses, Office will remain the standard. So I have a question to pose along the same lines. Is the browser world better now that there are about seven commonly used browsers (IE6, IE7, IE8, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc.) or were things better back in the IE6 days? I believe I could make an argument that it was better back in the day. At least I didn't have to remember which browser to open to get a site to render properly! |
| #14 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 9/20/2009 12:42:51 PM |
|
#13: If you have no competitors you do not have any compelling reason to improve what you offer; like it or not this is the reality.
As for proper rendering I could argue that "standards" would solve the problem; btw I agree that nowadays we have problems. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/21/2009 9:21:57 AM |
|
#5: There are formatting issues in some cases. Most businesses use only a small subset of Office features, most of which are duplicated in OO. You make it sound like every business uses highly-customized MS Office documents when that really isn't the case.
#7: I'm still baffled by the concept of people who can't (or won't) see the benefits of open standards and how closed standards harm innovation & lead to vendor lock-in. #8: MS tries hard to pay lip service to the concepts of competition and compatibility/interoperability, but they are empty words. We've had this discussion so many times in the past, and I'm amazed that you continue to cling to this fantasy that MS supports interoperability (as opposed to intraoperability which MS wholeheartedly embraces) when history, their actions and all evidence point to the contrary. #10: OO is for loosers. Its a dead end and I don't get why everybody hasn't figured that out yet. There are so many things wrong in that one post. I'm not sure how you reconcile that OO is dying when it gets bigger, more developed and more widely used every year. That seems like the exact opposite of death. #11: It's not complimentary to you, the way you suck up to those who share your point of view. #13: Is the browser world better now that there are about seven commonly used browsers (IE6, IE7, IE8, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc.) or were things better back in the IE6 days? After watching IE stagnate for 5 years before Firefox kicked it in the ass, do you really need to ask that question? Really?? I use the web a lot and I use Firefox exclusively. Things are already way past the point of stumbling upon IE-only sites. Those days are long gone, and good riddance. |
| #16 By 9589 (71.54.56.105) at 9/21/2009 11:44:10 AM |
|
Ho hum, IBM dictates to their employees . . . They did this exact same thing with much fan fare about five years ago. IBMers went back to what they were doing - using Micorosft OS and applications including Office. They'll do the same this time. zzzzzzzzzz
By the way, how is that Munich conversion to open sore going? lol |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/21/2009 12:46:14 PM |
|
#16: By the way, how is that Munich conversion to open sore going? lol
Slow but steady, despite political interference from proprietary software interests. To quote: "Since the Munich migration was first announced, there have been rumours and reports on the web about its progress including stories that the project had stalled and had even been reversed, said Schiessl. "There were a lot of rumours about what didn't go right in Munich. I don't know where the rumours came from but I am very often asked, "Oh, I have heard that Munich is going back to Microsoft solutions because you are failing your project." I don't know who spread this but that is anti-lobbying," he said." http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=866 Why do you ask? |
| #18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/21/2009 3:25:44 PM |
|
Hello? JD??? Helllllllloooooooo? I would have thought you'd be back with another gem, considering your interest in the Munich OSS adoption.
Man, AW seems to be full of people who snipe from the sidelines and then disappear when the target shoots back. |
| #19 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 9/21/2009 9:03:17 PM |
|
Latch,
I've got a hard drive full of old patient files in .wpd format. At the time WordPerfect was the number one word processing program. When my Israeli IT guy told me I was a fool to not migrate to Office I laughed. He got the last laugh. |
| #20 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/22/2009 8:06:33 AM |
| #19: You're always going to have that problem, no matter which software you use. This is why open file formats are so important. Even if you had converted those old WP files to Word, do you have any guarantee from Microsoft that MS Office 2025 will be able to read them? |
| #21 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 9/22/2009 1:58:14 PM |
|
Office Standard 2007 Retail: $340
Average Usage Timespan: 2 years Daily Usage Cost: $0.65 first 2 years Office Upgrade: $210 Average Usage Timespan: 2 years Daily Usage Cost: $0.40 every 2 years By using OO you are increasing your maintenance costs, reducing your options for third party software, etc. to save an daily cost of $0.52 over 4 years. If you are benefiting "financially" in these "hard economic times" by saving half a buck per day per worker... you may be at the end of your rope. If you want to save money in your office I'd strongly recommend cutting out free coffee and bagels or moving your climate control 2-3 degrees. You'll save more money than neutering your workers by having them use an "free" office program. |
| #22 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/22/2009 2:52:07 PM |
|
#21: Wow. I have a few questions for you:
1) How many systems under school board control are running MS Office? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? 2) After detailing the costs of Office, you then claim that OO is more expensive without providing any OO numbers whatsoever. How do you make that claim? 3) How are you reducing your options for third-party software? I assume you mean Office plugins? There are lots of extensions for OO as well. If you are benefiting "financially" in these "hard economic times" by saving half a buck per day per worker... you may be at the end of your rope. What if we're talking about 100,000 systems running Office? That amounts to $52,000 PER DAY. btw MS gave up that ROI argument against Linux because they couldn't convince people that free was more expensive than expensive. This post was edited by Latch on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 15:00. |
| #23 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 9/22/2009 3:56:06 PM |
|
1) So if I multiply a number by many times it becomes scarey? Half a dollar per computer per day. Oh and I guess if we're talking about schools you can pretty much cut all my numbers in half.
2) Purchase prices of all "free" software is nil. Management, Deployment, Training, Lost Productivity all have costs. Depending on each implementation of the software those costs add up. MS Office has some of those costs involved but has an insanely mature ecosystem for each. OpenOffice doesn't even compete in the same arena. 3) Again, ecosystem. MS has made office one of the easiest programs to extend that I've ever seen. The entire talent pool who can write in something as simple as VBA can extend the hell out of Office. This includes many who have never written a line of real programming code. Aside from ease of creation the library of Office addins dwarfs OO's in count and usability. Granted this is hard to quantify, but one only needs to put on their logic cap. And your final comment is childish at best. I find it funny that someone thinks they can take a number of insignificance and multiply it by a bajillion to make it significant. HOLY CRAP $52k PER DAY I WAS SO WRONG. The savings or gains in your example are all multiplied 100k fold. And to play along, my recommendation to lower the thermostat a couple degrees in a building housing 100k computers will still yield more savings. Purchase price is not the only cost of software despite what the OOS bro's believe. Office is going to be in nearly every job you occupy. It will allow you to more efficiently get your work done even today with the competitors around. It will be supported indefiniately by Microsoft's full force because it is their prized product. Oh and I know they didn't bother giving that ROI argument about Linux. But sadly I would assert that it's because they realized the argument didn't need to be made. After a decade of ppl touting "free software" they still move the same amount of licenses into the market. They didn't stop because it wasn't working, they stopped because it wasn't needed. |
| #24 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 9/22/2009 4:01:45 PM |
|
Oh and three more thoughts -
1) Did you keep multiplying .52 by a number until it yielded the scare factor you were looking for or did you start out right at 100k? 2) I have deployed OO on a few computers. Mainly for machines that ppl who don't need to use productivity software regularly use. In that context, where the worker will yield too little increased productivity it makes sense to through the cheapo junk at them. 3) My comment in 2 should not let you assume that that logic works with students at this gigantic school Latch found. There they also have a responsibility to prepare students for real world jobs, at which point the value comes from learning how to use software they will run into when they get out of school This post was edited by MrHumpty on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 16:05. |
| #25 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 9/22/2009 4:38:15 PM |
|
I've done some charitable work from time to time consisting mostly of tech refreshes of non-profits. Microsoft, as do many of the major vendors, provide nearly free software to them. Schools are no exception.
For example, I purchased under a recent 501(c) charter, Windows Vista Business and Office 2007 Enterprise for 35 computers plus SBS 2008 Premium w/40 cal pack for $1800. As I recall, just SBS 2008 Premium w/o the 50 cal pack was over $1800. This non-profit couldn't belive their ears when I told them of the savings. We bought the workstations and servers from Dell at considerable savings, as well. While Dell gave them a hefty discount it was nothing as extravagant as Microsoft's. This particular non-profit was a group of attorneys that gave freely over their time to the less fortunate. From a technical viewpoint, it would have been less than desirable for them to have to use open sore software, as they interact with businesses and government entities as a regular part of their practice. Having file formats that the rest of the planet uses makes that aspect of their work a non issue. Having the power of Microsoft Office allows them to bring in a plethora of third party add-ons that just don't exist in the open sore world. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 285 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:35:46 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
