NeoOffice 2.2.3 New Features page

pluby · The Architect Joined: Jun 16, 2003 Posts: 11949

FYI. I added the following new NeoWiki article:

http://neowiki.neooffice.org/index.php/NeoOffice_2.2.3_New_Features

Patrick

sardisson · Town Crier Joined: Feb 01, 2004 Posts: 4588

We probably need to start working on a NeoOffice 2.2.3/OpenOffice 2.3?/MS Office 2008 Feature Comparison page, too...

Smokey

pluby · The Architect Joined: Jun 16, 2003 Posts: 11949

For the NeoOffice 2.2.3 release, I will be changing the main website's Features page to list only the new features in the current release as the comparison to OOo X11 is quickly becoming obsolete given that OOo will be doing a native OOo 3.0 Beta release in the next couple of months.

What I want to do is put a link a NeoOffice 2.2.3 features comparison NeoWiki article. Should I just copy the NeoOffice 2.2.2 features comparison and then add the Office 2008 features to the comparison i.e. .docx, .xlsx, and .pptx import and export?

Also, should we replace the OpenOffice.org X11 comparison to the proposed OpenOffice.org 3.0 Aqua Beta? Granted, most of the features are unknown, but we can download the latest OOo 2.4 RC4 Aqua builds from here to get a very good idea as to what they will and won't support in their Beta release. Specifically, we know the following:

1. OOo 3.0 will only import, not export Office OpenXML files
2. OOo 3.0 will have the charting module and will add PDF import that are not in NeoOffice

Thoughts?

Patrick

sardisson · Town Crier Joined: Feb 01, 2004 Posts: 4588

We've always kept that page comparing the latest stable/released/supported version of the other products when our version was released. Among other things, that means we can know the set of features and limitations the product actually has Wink

It's unfair both to the compared product and to users of our page to compare based on our best estimates of what an unreleased product may or may not have. (OTOH, when the developers have publicly announced that a soon-upcoming release will have X feature, we have often added a "footnote" to that effect, e.g. the OOo address book integration.)

So I'd prefer to see the page compare 2.2.3 to OOo 2.3.x (or is 2.4.x out?) and Office 2008.

In particular, besides the OOXML formats, we should note that Office now runs natively on Intel Macs and is a Universal Binary (which we know some people are unhappy that Neo's not). I think Office's language/script support has been vastly improved (though still no RTL support, despite promises of that during development Razz

), too.

I've gone ahead and copied the 2.2.2 page into the 2.2.3 page and made a couple of changes, but work remains.

Smokey

pluby · The Architect Joined: Jun 16, 2003 Posts: 11949

pluby · The Architect Joined: Jun 16, 2003 Posts: 11949

One note: when we are updating the Neo 2.2.3 feature comparisons, we should not try to give NeoOffice any bias. The first paragraph, in particular may be a bit of a stretch, IMO. Yes, NeoOffice has some features over MS Office, but MS Office has many features that users consider indispensible.

In general, my experience is that it is safer to understate our product rather than overstate. With understating features, users can be pleasantly surprised if our statements are incorrect. However, with overstating users will be sorely disappointed when we are incorrect.

Just my two cents,

Patrick

ovvldc · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject:

pluby · The Architect Joined: Jun 16, 2003 Posts: 11949

Lorinda · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject:

One thing to consider adding to the comparison chart...OOo 2.3 for X11 is at best only partially compatible with Leopard. Anything that requires Java (like the entire Base module) won't work on Leopard.

I've seen lots of posts about this on the OOo Community forums. Several regulars there have been encouraging Mac users to give NeoOffice a try. Smile

Lorinda

ovvldc · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject:

I agree with Smokey. No need to go into features that haven't been delivered yet. Two questions:

*Is there a list for new features in 2.3 that we need to add as well? Since we are now lagging two .subreleases...

*How can we compare their implementation of media support to NeoOffice's?

I also have something unrelated: there is a project at MacForge to switch the from old Xfree86 X11 to the new X.org. I do not know if it is anywhere near production quality, but I wonder if RetroOffice works under it.

Best wishes,
Oscar

djpimley · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject:

Samwise · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject:

sardisson · Town Crier Joined: Feb 01, 2004 Posts: 4588

pluby · The Architect Joined: Jun 16, 2003 Posts: 11949

sardisson · Town Crier Joined: Feb 01, 2004 Posts: 4588

I spent some time this afternoon with the 2.2.3 Feature Comparison page and got rid of everything I saw that was glaringly wrong (alas, poor Microsoft, only adding one new script to 2008's language support :p ).

As always, I'd appreciate more eyes on it, so that we can consider it "done" (at least until OOo 2.4 ships and we know what processor-OS version-language combos will exist and we update for that) and our fabulous multilingual wiki elf team can start their versions.

Smokey