# Opinions on MS Office vs. The Competition?



## Jack1000 (Feb 4, 2001)

Much of the criticism of MS Office platforms has been, (and remains) the fact that the software is overpriced, especially for the home user, requiring $350-$450 for an upgrade. A further concern is how later versions of the software continue to bloat down system memory and resources. The mistake being made that MS, from the early days of Office 95 to the new Office 2007, seemed to reply on everyone multi-tasking in a business environment with Word, Excel, Outlook, Power Point, and Access (for Pro Versions.) A further issue, is that many students on limited budgets wound up using Word, and maybe Outlook, if that was their e-mail program of choice. But security concerns now require users to have at least an updated Outlook 2002 (XP) or higher, which means for the home user spending another $400.

With the rise of free excellent e-mail programs such as Google's G-mail, and the New Yahoo Mail, to compete with MS Outlook, in addition to the outstanding reviews of Star's Open Office, which does everything that MS Office versions do, and is free. How much longer will MS be able to justify users being able to pay $100's of dollars when the free, open sourced, and software that works across computer platforms (from the old Windows 98 to the New Windows Vista.) works just as well? An examination of the web browsers shows how Firefox and Opera provide outstanding alternatives to IE, without bloating down the system, or without requiring Windows XP SP-2 or Vista to run.

Will open sourced platforms such as Open Office, do to Microsoft Office what Firefox and Opera did to IE? The other comment is how do such companies as Mozilla with Firefox and Star with Open Office make money by providing these free products? What do you see Microsoft doing to compete with such competition? Can they do this at a fair and reasonable price to the consumer? From the looks and complaints of the new bloated Office 2007, implying change just for the sake of "new and cool" over better productivity and performance from the conventional Office 95-2003 interface, What do all of you see happening with these issues and why?

Jack


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

I think MS has achieved sufficient "branding" with Office that people will do whatever they can to use it, including piracy. OpenOffice suits the needs of 98% of the users I've recommended use it but rather than give it a chance, they think they need "Word" or "Excel" to be able to a "Word" or an "Excel" they are sent. Some who use OpenOffice, at my recommendation, have adjusted to it and it works more than adequately for them.

For "the masses", I think MS Office will be perceived as the "only" viable option purely because that's all they really know AND MS Office does work and work well.

Peace...


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

Microsoft Office Professional 2007, Full, English
$689.99 Each

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate, Full Version, English
$499.92 Each

I pay 13% tax

I use Linux which came with Open Office. Both free.
$1,344.60 Will easily buy a Wii and numerous games

I don't know why anyone uses MS.
PCLinuxOS eliminates the excuse of command line. Wii will game.

Edit: Peace of mind, to me, is priceless. I don't worry about my Linux. No anti-virus, no anti-......


----------



## jonmcc33 (Jan 26, 2008)

It costs so much because of productivity through it. Home users obviously don't need the capability of it so why would they even think of getting it? Alternatively you can buy each application of the Office Suite by itself for a much cheaper price. If you just need Word and Outlook (as I do) then you can just get those. 

I know that Thunderbird is free but it honestly pales in comparison to Outlook 2007. I speak based upon experience as well. I was using Outlook for quite some time but switched to Thunderbird for about 5 months. I just missed all of the features and capability that Outlook had so I went ahead and switched to Outlook 2007. Much happier with my e-mail client now. 

The best part is that Microsoft has made Outlook 2007 that much easier to configure for home users. I just put in my name, Gmail address and password and it set up everything else for me. No need for advanced configuration at all. :up:


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

jonmcc33 said:


> It costs so much because of productivity through it. Home users obviously don't need the capability of it so why would they even think of getting it? Alternatively you can buy each application of the Office Suite by itself for a much cheaper price. If you just need Word and Outlook (as I do) then you can just get those.


I don't know if the capabilities of MS Office warrant the price charged for it but I do agree MS Office is a good productivity suite and is worth at least half of its current price, at the very least. I do think MS Office is pricy but I have no problem with it being a commercial app.

As for buying the indvidual components of Office for less money, this might NOT be the case depending on which version of Office you're considering. A friend of mine wanted MS Word *only* on her Vista system. It came pre-installed with a trial of the small business edition of MS Office. So, I went shopping for a copy of Word for her and found one at Fry's Electronics for $229. I also found a copy of MS Office Home/Student edition for $130 (it was on sale). I couldn't believe my eyes. Of course, I grabbed the home edition for her even though she didn't want the other Office components.

Alternatively, I had to purchase a copy of MS Office 2004 for Mac OS X to address a licensing issue. The home edition was around $150 or so BUT this purchase was for a business so I searched for an appropriate copy of Office we could legally install. $499 was the price. *Sigh* Fortunately, I was able to find MS Office 2004 Pro for Mac OS X on eBay for $130 and I bought and installed that.



> I know that Thunderbird is free but it honestly pales in comparison to Outlook 2007. I speak based upon experience as well. I was using Outlook for quite some time but switched to Thunderbird for about 5 months. I just missed all of the features and capability that Outlook had so I went ahead and switched to Outlook 2007. Much happier with my e-mail client now.


It's funny you mention this since my experience has been almost the exact opposite. I've spent more time with Thunderbird than Outlook and I prefer Thunderbird to Outlook. I hate Outlook's preview-pane options (I can't enable it and fully hide it like I can with Thunderbird) and I don't use any of the calendar or Exchange server oriented functions of Outlook. I don't like the way Outlook manages multiple e-mail accounts and unfortunately I can't comment on its spam filtering capabilities since I don't get any spam at my work e-mail account.

I guess it all depends on what your needs are. 



> The best part is that Microsoft has made Outlook 2007 that much easier to configure for home users. I just put in my name, Gmail address and password and it set up everything else for me. No need for advanced configuration at all. :up:


Did you configure POP3 or IMAP access to Gmail?

Peace...


----------



## jonmcc33 (Jan 26, 2008)

tomdkat said:


> I don't know if the capabilities of MS Office warrant the price charged for it but I do agree MS Office is a good productivity suite and is worth at least half of its current price, at the very least. I do think MS Office is pricy but I have no problem with it being a commercial app.
> 
> As for buying the indvidual components of Office for less money, this might NOT be the case depending on which version of Office you're considering. A friend of mine wanted MS Word *only* on her Vista system. It came pre-installed with a trial of the small business edition of MS Office. So, I went shopping for a copy of Word for her and found one at Fry's Electronics for $229. I also found a copy of MS Office Home/Student edition for $130 (it was on sale). I couldn't believe my eyes. Of course, I grabbed the home edition for her even though she didn't want the other Office components.
> 
> Alternatively, I had to purchase a copy of MS Office 2004 for Mac OS X to address a licensing issue. The home edition was around $150 or so BUT this purchase was for a business so I searched for an appropriate copy of Office we could legally install. $499 was the price. *Sigh* Fortunately, I was able to find MS Office 2004 Pro for Mac OS X on eBay for $130 and I bought and installed that.


Microsoft Word 2007: $109
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2765116

Generally that would be if you really need a word processing application as good as Microsoft Word is. I've used OpenOffice myself and although it's decent it just pales in comparison IMO.



tomdkat said:


> It's funny you mention this since my experience has been almost the exact opposite. I've spent more time with Thunderbird than Outlook and I prefer Thunderbird to Outlook. I hate Outlook's preview-pane options (I can't enable it and fully hide it like I can with Thunderbird) and I don't use any of the calendar or Exchange server oriented functions of Outlook. I don't like the way Outlook manages multiple e-mail accounts and unfortunately I can't comment on its spam filtering capabilities since I don't get any spam at my work e-mail account.


It's easy to change the preview pane. Go to View > Reading Pane and select Right/Bottom/Off.

I gave Thunderbird 5 solid months of use and it just didn't do it for me. I also tend to use the calendar quite a bit and didn't like that Thunderbird didn't feature this.

Outlook handles multiple e-mail accounts fine except for sending them. By default it will send as the first e-mail account but you can select which account to send from before sending. In regards to the mailboxes, you can easily add multiple mailboxes and browse through them. Alternatively you can create another profile and select which account to use when opening Outlook.

I've just grown so used to it and how easy it is, not to mention all the features. I really can't imagine myself using anything other than Outlook at this point.



tomdkat said:


> Did you configure POP3 or IMAP access to Gmail?


I didn't configure anything at all. It asked for my name, e-mail address and password. It set everything up automatically. This is Outlook 2007 that I'm referring to.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

jonmcc33 said:


> Microsoft Word 2007: $109
> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2765116


Thanks for that link. I don't know why I didn't think to look online for a copy of Word and given I was under some time constraint to get it for her, I went with local store options. 



> Generally that would be if you really need a word processing application as good as Microsoft Word is. I've used OpenOffice myself and although it's decent it just pales in comparison IMO.


I use OpenOffice all the time and have yet to find something Word does significantly better. Some things are significantly different but not necessarily "better". One thing I love about OpenOffice is the ability to save a file directly as a PDF file by simply clicking one button and then choosing where the file is to be saved. None of the "print to PDF" stuff is needed.



> It's easy to change the preview pane. Go to View > Reading Pane and select Right/Bottom/Off.


That doesn't address my issue. In Thunderbird, I can drag the preview pane all the way down so it's hidden. If I want to preview a message, I can drag the preview pane up to view the message. I can't do that with Outlook, at least not Outlook 2003. It seems I can either turn off the pane completely or I can hide most of it, leaving a little bit exposed at the bottom.



> I gave Thunderbird 5 solid months of use and it just didn't do it for me. I also tend to use the calendar quite a bit and didn't like that Thunderbird didn't feature this.


For things relating to Exchange server functions, it's hard to beat Outlook. Things like Calendar sharing and it's ability to have lots of detailed info in the address book are great. Those are simply things I have no real need for so I never use them. My company has standardized on Outlook so I use it daily. 



> Outlook handles multiple e-mail accounts fine except for sending them. By default it will send as the first e-mail account but you can select which account to send from before sending. In regards to the mailboxes, you can easily add multiple mailboxes and browse through them. Alternatively you can create another profile and select which account to use when opening Outlook.


This is precisely what I hate most about Outlook. Thunderbird allows me to create multiple "discrete" mail accounts, each with its own inbox, junk folder, etc. Each account can have its own set of filters and I can easily drag and drop messages between them, if necessary. When I send a message from any account, the "From" address is properly filled in AND I can change it to another one, if necessary. Each mail account behaves as if it was the only mail account defined and that works VERY well for me. None of that separate profile crap is needed, etc. :down:



> I've just grown so used to it and how easy it is, not to mention all the features. I really can't imagine myself using anything other than Outlook at this point.


I almost feel this way about Thunderbird but I'm a bit more abstract in my view toward using e-mail applications. I don't like Outlook but I can use it just as effectively as I use Thunderbird. I just deal with the shortcomings of Outlook I encounter and move on with my life. 



> I didn't configure anything at all. It asked for my name, e-mail address and password. It set everything up automatically. This is Outlook 2007 that I'm referring to.


Ok. Gmail now supports POP3 and IMAP accounts. Here are instructions for adding a Gmail POP account to Thunderbird. Sounds pretty much like what you experienced with Outlook 2007. To add a Gmail IMAP account, more work is involved but that's because Google offered IMAP access to Gmail *after* Thunderbird already supported Gmail's POP capability. So, IMAP access to Gmail will require some configuration but that's reasonable and should change in a future release of Thunderbird.

If Outlook 2007 didn't ask you how you wanted to connect to Gmail, I wonder if it configured POP or IMAP access.

Peace...


----------



## Lost in Here (Jun 8, 2007)

I thought I would go through M$ office withdrawal when I switched to open office. It's a little different but I haven't had any significant problems with it.

I love Thunderbird. Outlook just doesn't compare. Aside from doing everything Outlook can do, the plugins make it so much more convenient that I cannot imagine using anything else. Additionally, Microsoft won't be able to find imaginative ways to charge me for using their products if I stick with open source. Can you believe they want to start charging people for accessing Hotmail via their email client. I predict a massive exodus of their users to programs such as Thunderbird that will perform the same task for free.

Don't get me started on outlook express, it's just awful. 

I have received most of my software for free but that won't be the case forever if I stay with M$. With open source, I'm set for life.


----------



## jonmcc33 (Jan 26, 2008)

tomdkat said:


> Ok. Gmail now supports POP3 and IMAP accounts. Here are instructions for adding a Gmail POP account to Thunderbird. Sounds pretty much like what you experienced with Outlook 2007. To add a Gmail IMAP account, more work is involved but that's because Google offered IMAP access to Gmail *after* Thunderbird already supported Gmail's POP capability. So, IMAP access to Gmail will require some configuration but that's reasonable and should change in a future release of Thunderbird.
> 
> If Outlook 2007 didn't ask you how you wanted to connect to Gmail, I wonder if it configured POP or IMAP access.
> 
> Peace...


I thought you had to enable this in Gmail. I remember that POP3 e-mail support had to be switched on or something?

Those instructions indicate a lot of configuring and I remember them well when I configured Gmail for Outlook 2003 and even Thunderbird. Like I said, I opened Outlook 2007 and it asked for only my name, e-mail address and password. Everything was completely automatic. No need to set ports or anything. :up:


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

jonmcc33 said:


> I thought you had to enable this in Gmail. I remember that POP3 e-mail support had to be switched on or something?


Yep, I believe POP3 access must be turned on in the Gmail account. IMAP access must be enabled as well. I just looked at one of my Gmail accounts and BOTH POP3 and IMAP access are currently disabled.



> Those instructions indicate a lot of configuring and I remember them well when I configured Gmail for Outlook 2003 and even Thunderbird. Like I said, I opened Outlook 2007 and it asked for only my name, e-mail address and password. Everything was completely automatic. No need to set ports or anything. :up:


What are you talking about? Here are the instructions for configuring POP3 Gmail access in Thunderbird (from the link above):


> * Open Thunderbird, go to "Tools -> Account Settings", click the "Add Account" button, select "Gmail" and click "Next".
> * Enter your name in the "Your Name:" field, and enter your entire Gmail address ([email protected]) in the "Email Address:" field. Click the "Next" button.
> * Press the "Finish" button.


Where is the "lot of configuring" in the above steps?

Also, with your Outlook 2007 configuration to Gmail, did it configure POP3 or IMAP access to your Gmail account?

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Lost in Here said:


> I thought I would go through M$ office withdrawal when I switched to open office. It's a little different but I haven't had any significant problems with it.


Great! :up:



> I love Thunderbird. Outlook just doesn't compare. Aside from doing everything Outlook can do, the plugins make it so much more convenient that I cannot imagine using anything else.


In all fairness to Outlook, I do think it's calendar and Exchange server oriented functionality are things Outlook does well. I don't know how well Evolution compares to Outlook, in this regard.

I haven't personally used the calendar functions in Outlook and I don't know how much of the Exchange server functionality I use but more often than not calendar sharing and Exchange server functionality are the two main things those who praise Outlook mention most and with the most conviction.

Peace...


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

Jack1000 said:


> Will open sourced platforms such as Open Office, do to Microsoft Office what Firefox and Opera did to IE? The other comment is how do such companies as Mozilla with Firefox and Star with Open Office make money by providing these free products? What do you see Microsoft doing to compete with such competition? Can they do this at a fair and reasonable price to the consumer? From the looks and complaints of the new bloated Office 2007, implying change just for the sake of "new and cool" over better productivity and performance from the conventional Office 95-2003 interface, What do all of you see happening with these issues and why?
> 
> Jack


Microsoft's New Mantra: Peace, Love, And Open Source?
http://www.bmighty.com/blog/main/archives/2008/02/microsofts_new.html


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

RootbeaR said:


> Microsoft's New Mantra: Peace, Love, And Open Source?
> http://www.bmighty.com/blog/main/archives/2008/02/microsofts_new.html


I heard grumblings about this on the radio the other day. 

I think this move by Microsoft is to enable it to better compete with Google. We'll see how it unfolds. 

Peace...


----------



## good grief (Aug 26, 2007)

" The other comment is how do such companies as Mozilla with Firefox and Star with Open Office make money by providing these free products? What do you see Microsoft doing to compete with such competition? Can they do this at a fair and reasonable price to the consumer?"

With regards OpenOffice, they make their money (from what I read on their site) by asking for donations (they have become a little more aggressive in their pursuit of this lately, as you can see when you go to download) and by charging businesses - albeit probably much less than MS.

With regard to what MS is doing to compete with such competition, I believe they are using Silverlight for example, to attract anyone with interest in programming/software creation. This IMO keeps it all firmly under the MS umbrella, and in a nice handy place for monitoring, garnering ideas etc.

I think the development of Tafiti search engine is their answer to Firefox etc. They seem to be aiming for a great deal of eye candy in this respect, and this will probably work. After all, this is a huge selling point with games. I like beautiful graphics myself (although the gameplay needs to be good too). For myself though, while Silverlight offers this and that, and Tafiti is nice on the eye, they are impossible on dialup, being so slow to load that I've given up trying to use them. I don't imagine that would stop MS though, as for many people, dialup is a thing of the past, and they will after all, market where the money is. Just good business practice.

I have Office 2007 Home and Student and also OpenOffice. I find that while I can do everything in OpenOffice that I can do in Office 2007 with the exception of opening Word 2007 docs, I find that copying and pasting from the web e.g. tutorials with pics, works much better with Office 2007, and it seems to be more 'intuitive' for want of a better word. Also, the clip function in One Note is brilliant, since it just saves automatically. 

Openoffice tends to paste everything in boxes, and I have to spend a great deal of time mucking round with this to get it looking even remotely how I want it. The PDF function is good, but that is also a free addon for Word 2007, so MS have removed that as being a reason for bypassing Office 2007 as well.


----------



## jonmcc33 (Jan 26, 2008)

tomdkat said:


> Yep, I believe POP3 access must be turned on in the Gmail account. IMAP access must be enabled as well. I just looked at one of my Gmail accounts and BOTH POP3 and IMAP access are currently disabled.


Oh, well I had POP3 enabled from way back. I never enabled IMAP.



tomdkat said:


> What are you talking about? Here are the instructions for configuring POP3 Gmail access in Thunderbird (from the link above):
> Where is the "lot of configuring" in the above steps?


Ah, I was looking at the part about configuring an additional Gmail account. 



tomdkat said:


> Also, with your Outlook 2007 configuration to Gmail, did it configure POP3 or IMAP access to your Gmail account?
> 
> Peace...


When I look at the settings in Outlook 2007 for my profile it shows as POP3. :up:


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

jonmcc33 said:


> I thought you had to enable this in Gmail. I remember that POP3 e-mail support had to be switched on or something?
> 
> Those instructions indicate a lot of configuring and I remember them well when I configured Gmail for Outlook 2003 and even Thunderbird. Like I said, I opened Outlook 2007 and it asked for only my name, e-mail address and password. Everything was completely automatic. No need to set ports or anything. :up:


GMAIL sets up just like any other POP email account for me. I didn't do anything special to get it working, and I sure didn't have to open any ports.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

JohnWill said:


> GMAIL sets up just like any other POP email account for me. I didn't do anything special to get it working, and I sure didn't have to open any ports.


He meant POP3 support had to be enabled in your Gmail account before you can configure a POP3 mail client to connect to Gmail.

In one sense, he sort of "cheated" since he _already_ had POP3 support enabled in his Gmail account. This means Outlook didn't have to do anything special to create the POP3 connection to his Gmail account and so he didn't include the Gmail POP3 setup as part of his Outlook 2007 configuration. This made Outlook 2007's setup look "easy". Once POP3 or IMAP (or both) is enabled in your Gmail account, Thunderbird and Outlook 2007 appear to be about the same in terms of configuration of Gmail POP3 access.

Peace...


----------



## jonmcc33 (Jan 26, 2008)

tomdkat said:


> He meant POP3 support had to be enabled in your Gmail account before you can configure a POP3 mail client to connect to Gmail.
> 
> In one sense, he sort of "cheated" since he _already_ had POP3 support enabled in his Gmail account. This means Outlook didn't have to do anything special to create the POP3 connection to his Gmail account and so he didn't include the Gmail POP3 setup as part of his Outlook 2007 configuration. This made Outlook 2007's setup look "easy". Once POP3 or IMAP (or both) is enabled in your Gmail account, Thunderbird and Outlook 2007 appear to be about the same in terms of configuration of Gmail POP3 access.
> 
> Peace...


I didn't "cheat" at all. I've always had POP3 enabled in my Gmail account whether I used Thunderbird or Outlook. If I didn't have it enabled in Gmail then Thunderbird wouldn't have been able to connect to it either. 

In regards to the similarity, you actually have to select Gmail as an account option in Thunderbird. You do not have to do that in Outlook 2007 so it is that much easier. :up:


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

jonmcc33 said:


> I didn't "cheat" at all. I've always had POP3 enabled in my Gmail account whether I used Thunderbird or Outlook. If I didn't have it enabled in Gmail then Thunderbird wouldn't have been able to connect to it either.


Having POP3 configured in Gmail *is* part of the configuration process, regardless of using Outlook or Thunderbird so you *must* include that in your steps. 



> In regards to the similarity, you actually have to select Gmail as an account option in Thunderbird. You do not have to do that in Outlook 2007 so it is that much easier. :up:


So, you're saving two mouse clicks... one to select Gmail and one for the "Next" button. Gotcha. :up: I guess I'll pay the price of those two mouse clicks so I can hide my preview pane when I don't want to see it and drag it up when I want to see it. :up:

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think MS Office will continue to be popular due to misconceptions about the "need" for it and due to piracy.

Peace...


----------



## IC8 (Mar 9, 2008)

Opinions on MS Office vs. The Competition? In all fairness, there is simply no competition, MS Office is simply much better than any other Windows product out there, no matter what the Open Source fanboys have to say about this. I also find it weak if people call Office bloated, when it's not. If that's the case then every modern application that has seen 10 versions is bloated, from Photoshop to 3DS Max to Fruity Loops, heck even the word processor of Open Office would be seen as extremely bloated compared to WordPad.

No, I think we should talk about bloat when the features get in our way of doing things, with that in mind I can only say that the new interface in Office 2007 is simply a good improvement, even if we all have to get used to it.

Performance wise Star Office is also running behind 2007: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=480

That brings us to the next issue; price.

Let me start by saying that free doesn't always mean that you save money. 
Take for example a business that has been using Windows on its 500 desktop computers for the last 10 years. A change to Linux doesn't mean that it's always a win-win situation when you save on 500 desktop licenses, there is a lot more to it like maintenance, education, conversion, world standards, etc.

Then we have the popularity factor. Let's for example compare Gimp with Photoshop. 
Free doesn't always mean better. Anyone who runs a Photoshop site is statistically more likely to make more money than the person running a Gimp site. This is not only because of the fact that Photoshop is more popular, but also because of the large popularity among professionals and experienced amateurs, people who are willing to spend money on Photoshop related products like courses, books, plugins, calibration equipment, magazines, tablets, etc.
So from an advertisement and commissions based affiliation point of view the purchase value becomes less and less irrelevant compared to Gimp.

The point I'm trying to make is this; it all depends on what you want to do with the software and whether it's worth paying for. I do agree that a lot of people are using Ms Office when Open Office would do just fine.


----------

