Another Office replacement?

[mdevour]

Ever in search of the perfect MS Office replacement, I wonder if anyone has experience with SoftMaker Office?

http://www.softmaker.com/english/index_en.htm

Many claims of compatibility and interoperation with MS Word. The Linux/BSD version won't run but will preserve Word macros and scripts, supposedly.

Decent price, too. A bundle with both Windows and Linux versions is only $99 (US). That makes me wonder what the licensing is like, exactly... Can't find it on the site anywhere, except for the academic licenses. I'll send a question to their support staff and see how responsive they are.

Mike D.

[Lavene]

It was reviewed on Linux.com (http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/11/07/2013223) a while ago...

Tina

[Leon]

I have Softmaker. A couple of years ago they had a special offer so I bought a license.

I mainly use it to open .doc files from Mozilla because it is much faster opening than Star Office. By and large it is reliable, but it lacks a WordPerfect import/export filter. (Star Office 8-Linux finally got an import filter.) I also use it on the rare occasion I have to format a document in HTML; it is somewhat easier IMHO than StarOffice in this regard.

There is a new release; it still lacks a WP filter, but the Linux version is bundled with a FreeBSD version. I will probably update, as I am planning to get FreeBSD .1 eventually, when I can afford it. Trips to the veterinarian keep me broke :-(

[AndreL]

Trips to the veterinarian keep me broke :-(I hope it's not for you!!! :smiley4:

[Harold]

I purchased Textmaker 2002 for Linux in 2002. The first discovery was that, when firing up TM for the first time, you have to type in your name and e-mail address *exactly* as spelled when ordering the software along with the typical 20-digit (+/-) hyphenated registration code used on Windows OS and apps.

Once up and running, TM was FANTASTIC in comparison to the 2002 Openoffice.org and Abiword. TM 2002 supported search-and-replace for linefeed (^p) and tab (^t) characters, which is something that neither OO.o nor Abiword has *yet* figured out how to do. It also launched in a fraction of the time required by OO.o and it never choked when importing large files, like Abiword *still* does. All-in-all, it was a wonderful package back in 2002.

So, there were updates in 2003 and maybe in 2004, then no more updates as Softmaker put all their efforts into TM for Windows and their other projects. TM 2002 became increasingly flakey as Debian Etch continued to evolve, and by the start of 2006, TM 2002 was BROKEN.

Earlier this year, I purchased TM 2006 for Windows, and while it does a rather mediocre job of importing .rtf documents created in Word 2003, it is still the Word processor that I would recommend for someone getting ready to piss away hundreds of dollars for MS Office.

I have the same complaint now about TM that I have always had for OO.o, which is that the programmers of both apps are trying to keep up with MS by adding every worthless feature imaginable -- page layout, group editing, drawing tools -- into what needs to be a *simple* but competent word processor. Heidi Rozen, where are you now that we need you?

<Sigh...> I'm tempted, I really am. I have no doubt whatsoever that TM 2006 for Linux runs circles around the current versions of OO.o and Abiword. But, having watched SoftMaker in action for the past four years, I have come to believe that they see themselves as developers of Windows apps first and Linux apps second. I don't want to sit around for the next four years waiting for TM 2010.

Still, the price is right...

[danieldk]

Both me and my girlfriend had a TextMaker 2002 license, I also had a planmaker license. Both programs worked well, they were fast, light and only had mostly the interesting features. But then it started crashing on Libranet 2.8.1 and 3.0 with some more complex files, after a libc6 update. This particularly hit my girlfriend hard, since she was working on a booklet with a deadline. And IIRC it took Softmaker a few months to fix it (you can still find the bug report on their forums). In the meanwhile she installed Slackware on her computer, because restarting with some other program was not feasible, and TextMaker did work with Slackware's glibc.

They have a fine product, and I am very tempted to buy an upgrade. But this is holding me off. Of course, it is difficult to be good in all areas as a small company. And maybe their bug fixing policies have improved since then. At any rate, it is very nice of them to consider and support more niche platforms like FreeBSD. That alone makes the temptation to spends some bucks on their product quite big.

[Leon]

AndreL wrote;

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon
Trips to the veterinarian keep me broke :-(
I hope it's not for you!!!"

Actually, the two veterinarians I entrust the care of my dogs to are much more skillfull practitioners of medicine than the "patient managers" I have to deal with.

Getting back on topic, TM lacks a "make it fit" feature. AFAIK only WordPerfect 8.x provides this capability to Linux/FreeBSD users. I've read reports that WP XIII for Windows runs under CrossOver, although without macro functionality and some other minor disabilities. My testing of WP XIII/CrossOver has been delayed owing to some recent trips to my vets.

Of course, MS Word runs under CrossOver, and has a "make it fit" utility, albeit not as powerful as WP's.

[mdevour]

Thanks for all the input, folks. Once I've finished a few other projects I may download the demo and check it out.

Does anybody know what their individual license is like? I have not heard back from their e-mail support on that question.

As a short term solution I may try to get my ancient copy of word 97 to run under an emulator on the linux box. It'd only be for a few specialized things I still use it for. Regular word processing I'd do in something native to linux.

Be well,

Mike D.

[mdevour]

Another question, now that I know that there is no macro support built into TextMaker on the Linux platform, while the windows version appears to be a work in progress and still pretty light compared to Word's macro language:

Is there a Linux solution that would allow me to create and record keyboard triggered macros that would work only while a particular application has focus, to play back a series of keystrokes?

In other words, while TextMaker doesn't do macros on Linux, at least my simple need for a couple of keyboard macros could be satisfied?

Thanks,

Mike D.

[Leon]

Mike D wrote:
"In other words, while TextMaker doesn't do macros on Linux, at least my simple need for a couple of keyboard macros could be satisfied?"

I feel your pain. This is one reason (among many) why I persist in running WP8.x on my Linuces. OO/StarOffice allegedly provides macros, but I have yet to figure out how to create one. With WordPerfect 8 macros are easy to create and run.

[danieldk]

So, has anyone tried their latest installment? I had purchased SoftMaker Office 2008 before (as wel as TM2002). I have given the demo of Softmaker Office 2008 a quick spin, and it looks very good (though I haven't really tried any of the new features yet), so I have ordered an upgrade to 2008.

It now also includes a presentation program, which is good news, given the bad experience I have with OO.org impress.

[Leon]

I ordered an update Linux CD from Softmaker. Shortly after getting it I got a notice of an update.
Since I am still on dial-up, I e-mailed Softmaker to find out if they could burn a CD with the update for me. They did, charging only for postage. The CD arrived shortly thereafter; good customer service.

I use the word processor only occasionally. It is my default browser app for opening .doc attachments, since it is much faster starting than OO or StarOffice. I have some .doc files I revise periodically, and use it for that purpose too.

It is a good, solid product, the cost is reasonable since there is usually a discount for previous buyers, and they do answer their e-mails!

[danieldk]

I use the word processor only occasionally.

Me too, but primarily as a light-weight DTP program, since it has nice support for text frames.

It is a good, solid product, the cost is reasonable since there is usually a discount for previous buyers, and they do answer their e-mails!

Good to know ;), I have only used their forums in the past.

[morgoth]

I had to have a good laugh - people are bashing Microsoft (for a variety of reasons I do understand), but yet are happy to have to enter a 20 digit license key...imho that makes it no better than any other proprietary software.

I picked up Microsoft Office 2007 full edition (educational) from a local retailer for less than AU $250 and it does everything I need. I haven't noticed any odd behaviour, nor nasty bugs. I use it frequently. It's the best MS Office yet (and I've used them all from Office 97 onwards).

It seems fashionable these days to bash OpenOffice I've noticed. Sure, it's a bit bloated, but it *does* a good job of opening and editing MS Word files. Abiword was dodgy back then, probably still is. I never really liked KOffice.

When I was solely using Linux, I wouldn't have considered using proprietary software, it went against the raison d'etre for me using Linux. These days, since I'm happy in Windows land, I do my work, I have no problems, I have no compatbility issues. If you choose to use Linux, that's fine, but do you really and honestly think it's fair to bash Microsoft because *you* have problems reading .doc etc files because of your choice of operating systems? Gee...

Dave

[danieldk]

I had to have a good laugh - people are bashing Microsoft (for a variety of reasons I do understand), but yet are happy to have to enter a 20 digit license key...imho that makes it no better than any other proprietary software.

I am not bashing Office. It's a good product. I have said that for years: I dislike OpenOffice.org (and I disliked StarOffice), and I think for Office-type work Microsoft Office is nearly unparalleled. For this reason, I have also be using Microsoft Office 2000 on CrossOver for a long time.

My primary interest in TextMaker is due to its DTP-ish features.

Anyway, I don't really see anyone bashing Microsoft Office here. Actually most talk was about Softmaker Office without ever referring to Microsoft's products. Seems like you're trying to make a straw-man here ;).

I picked up Microsoft Office 2007 full edition (educational) from a local retailer for less than AU $250 and it does everything I need. I haven't noticed any odd behaviour, nor nasty bugs. I use it frequently. It's the best MS Office yet (and I've used them all from Office 97 onwards).

I was considering the latest installment for my Mac. I ended up buying Apple iWork '08. Why? I have a Mac Mini, my girlfriend has a Mac Mini, and she has a MacBook. Apple offers a family-pack for iWork priced 20 Euros higher than the single-user addition (Euro 99 vs Euro 79). Now we can install it on all our machines. I think it's a smart marketing move by Apple (they also do this for OS X AFAIK). It's clearly a commercial quality Office suite: everything works well, it's fast, and has good integration. iWorks Pages also makes lightweight DTP work easy, and Keynote is a good presentation program.

It seems fashionable these days to bash OpenOffice I've noticed. Sure, it's a bit bloated, but it *does* a good job of opening and editing MS Word files.

It always failed for me for more complex files. I tried to make a presentation with Impress once, it was very buggy, with slides being dropped suddenly, etc.

Abiword was dodgy back then, probably still is. I never really liked KOffice.

Yes, both are less bloated, but probably have even worse compatiblity.

When I was solely using Linux, I wouldn't have considered using proprietary software, it went against the raison d'etre for me using Linux.

Such a dichotomy seems a bit strange to me. I can understand that you are one one side of the fence. Or that you are pragmatic (e.g. I like the idea of free software, but don't think that proprietary software is immoral per se, mix and match). But you seem to by either fiercely anti-corporate and pro-free software, or fiercely anti-free software and pro-corporate.

[Leon]

Quoth Morgoth:
"If you choose to use Linux, that's fine, but do you really and honestly think it's fair to bash Microsoft because *you* have problems reading .doc etc files because of your choice of operating systems? Gee..."

If there is any reason to bash MS, specifically Word, it is because MS likes to change its .doc file format every so often so it is incompatible even with its own earlier versions of Word. I have lots of WP files created with DOS versions that open without problem with WP8/Linux and WP XIII running under CrossOver.

I like WP, OO/StarOffice and Softmaker in principle because they provide word processors that you can run natively under various OS's. I prefer WP and Softmaker in fact because they have, to me at least, user interfaces that let me concentrate on what I am writing rather than how to get the app to do what I want.

[morgoth]

And whilst it's ungentleman like to do so, Microsoft has *every* single right to do so. It's *their* software, to do with as *they* please. This is the major problem with the FSF and open source movements - they think that they have the right to tell proprietary software what it can, and cannot do with it's own belongings. How would you like it if I told you what you can, and cannot watch with your TV? Or, where you could drive, and not drive, with your car? The analogies are basic, but easily show my argument.

Microsoft isn't perfect, and it's certainly been anti competitive in a lot of areas, that is without a doubt. I still personally think the US DOJ was 'bought' not to interfere with Microsoft too much, specically by the Bush Jr. government. And I personally think that software patents should be totally abolished, and copyright terms limited to lifespan + 25 years, period, no exceptions. That being said, I'm a bit of a realist these days. Microsoft isn't going anywhere, and despite a general dislike for Vista (led by the computer magazines), it's still "top dog". Apple is even a worse monopolist than Microsoft, God help us if Apple ever got a majority foothold in the operating system world. Those goes do *NOT* play nice. Period.

Leon - when 95% of the world's population uses Windows, it is not economically viable for Microsoft to do the R&D to have it run on other platforms. In a perfect world, yes, I'd like to see it. We do not live in a perfect world. I do find it annoying that Microsoft can port MS Office to OS X, but not to Linux or BSD, which would certainly not be that much harder, but alas, Microsoft owns their software, and can do whatever they want with it, despite the moral issues that might be involved.

Morals don't always use commonsense. Laws don't always use commonsense. But laws tend to rely more on commonsense than morals do, and for good reason.

Dave

Quoth Morgoth:
"If you choose to use Linux, that's fine, but do you really and honestly think it's fair to bash Microsoft because *you* have problems reading .doc etc files because of your choice of operating systems? Gee..."

If there is any reason to bash MS, specifically Word, it is because MS likes to change its .doc file format every so often so it is incompatible even with its own earlier versions of Word. I have lots of WP files created with DOS versions that open without problem with WP8/Linux and WP XIII running under CrossOver.

I like WP, OO/StarOffice and Softmaker in principle because they provide word processors that you can run natively under various OS's. I prefer WP and Softmaker in fact because they have, to me at least, user interfaces that let me concentrate on what I am writing rather than how to get the app to do what I want.

[morgoth]

Daniel, I'm a bit of a paradox. I do like the virtues of the FSF, but they are not always do-able. People *use* software. Extolling freedoms is fine, but when they affect your ability to use the software, then something is dreadfully wrong. I do not like capitalism, it is the cause of most of man's ills imho, and that means I have a general tendency to dislike proprietary solutions. That said, proprietary solutions generally offer more features, are more usable, and more stable from my experience.

As an example, let's compare a proprietary software vs freeware (not open source):

Sky software (astronomical based) vs cart de ciel. The first is very well featured, easy to install and use. The 2nd, lacks help information. It lacks ease of use, and ease of installation of plugins. It has been designed in a non friendly UI manner, and in a haphazard manner. True, no one is making me use it, but it *proves* my point. I find that this is the case for nearly every single open source vs proprietary source software that I see. GNUcash vs Quicken or MYOB? No contest. Maya lightwave vs blender? No comparison.

My comment about Microsoft bashing was more circling on the irony of open source/free software users being ok with proprietary licenses, but feeling happy enough in the past (and present) to bash Microsoft for the very same things. I know most of you here, and I know you well enough via previous online communications to know what's been said in the past, and of the general dislike of Microsoft and it's products.

Years ago, I bought a CD copy of Windows 95c. I didn't open it for nearly a month. When I did open it, I found that it had the help CD, but not the actual installation CD. I took it back to the vendor at the PC fair, who told me that I was lieing, and that I was trying to scam them. I contacted Microsoft, who told me that it was an OEM issue, and that I should follow it up again with the vendor, but if I was still having issues, to get back in contact with them. Another six weeks of fighting with the vendor, and getting nowhere, I returned to Microsoft. Their legal department took over, sent a nasty letter to the vendor, and offered me compensation. I ended up with a full boxed copy of Windows NT 4 workstation (triple the value of what I'd originally bought). How's that for customer service? You could argue that they can afford to do that, since their retail dominance is so high, etc. You'd be partially right. However, I remember buying Suse 8 pro, and boy was that a mistake. Woeful customer service, woeful support. I'll never recommend a Suse product again, as long as there's breath in my lungs. p.o.s.

Most free software and open source software *lacks* real support. Pointing a user to a help file, or to a readme file, or online forums, etc, is *not* real product support imho. Real product support costs money, and that is part of the reason why you end up paying for proprietary software products.

There's a balance between using open source and proprietary software. I use a bunch of VMs on my Vista box. We use a bunch of VMs at work on our servers. We run both Linux and Windows boxes at work. Our desktop workstations run Windows btw, because they need to be *productive* in a work environment.

Linux uptake is at the smallest amount imho that I've seen in the past ten years. In fact, I'd say it's, in all honesty, in decline. OS X is absolutely making a killing in the market, and for good reason. Powerful, looks good, great UI, runs well, pretty stable and secure, and has a UNIX backbone if you want it. Plenty of *quality* software runs on it, and runs well. Linux has far too many issues imho for it to start taking the market by storm, and that includes small, 3rd party, proprietary (and non proprietary) office applications. Some of you use these very applications for very specialist needs, your average person does *not* need that degree of speciality. Never has, never will. Our application forms are written in MS Word (for our products @ work), it sucks, big time. My boss is a big Linux fan, but views it more as being usable in a server environment than desktop environment. I mentioned trying Lyx for the forums and got blank looks...and he's highly computer literate, I'd say far more literate than anyone on these forums (and I mean no disrespect). He's a genius, in all honesty.

Dave

[danieldk]

And whilst it's ungentleman like to do so, Microsoft has *every* single right to do so. It's *their* software, to do with as *they* please.

Actually, they can piss customers again and again, because they have a monopoly. Since compatibility of other suites is not 100%, and everybody else uses Office, most businesses have basically no choice to upgrade to the latest Windows and Office installment at some point. You can't say, I am happy with NT4 and Office 97, because Microsoft will not provide security updates for NT4 and newer Office versions are partly incompatible with Office 97.

Of course, it's their right to do it. But in a non-monopoly situation it wouldn't work.

This is the major problem with the FSF and open source movements - they think that they have the right to tell proprietary software what it can, and cannot do with it's own belongings.

I don't think so, nobody goes to court and sues Microsoft for Office incompatiblities. I think most FLOSS people (like myself) just like to point out the lock-in.

Microsoft isn't going anywhere, and despite a general dislike for Vista (led by the computer magazines), it's still "top dog".

No it's not. They power is slowly crumbling, and they will change from a monopolist into just a megacoorperation, like IBM earlier. They can't get a grip on search engines, online advertising, etc. And the operating system is starting to matter less and less. The browser is increasingly becoming the window to the world (no pun intended). Even the absolute monopoly of Internet Explorer seems to be ended for good. Microsoft will matter less in the world of the web, netbooks, and smartphones.

Apple is even a worse monopolist than Microsoft, God help us if Apple ever got a majority foothold in the operating system world. Those goes do *NOT* play nice. Period.

Agreed. They sue everyone, and have written 'lock in' on their face.

Leon - when 95% of the world's population uses Windows, it is not economically viable for Microsoft to do the R&D to have it run on other platforms.

Actually, the latest statistics show that the market penetration of Windows is now less than 90%. With OS X taking a chunk of ~10%. There's Office for OS X, so there seems to be some willingness to port. By the way, I think it would be economically viable, many versions on Office run on CrossOver Office, so building Office against winelib will probably be relatively little work.

But they won't because it is to dangerous. While Linux has a little marketshare on the desktop, it enjoys popularity in businesses. Businesses have many one-task machines. They won't use OS X, because they can get a Dell machine with Windows for half the price. But Linux with a native Office would suddenly become interesting, because it is affordable, breaks the upgrade cycle they are currently locked into, and integrates well with the Linux servers they probably already have. So, porting Office to Linux would be killing Windows marketshare, without gaining anything.

[danieldk]

Sky software (astronomical based) vs cart de ciel.

It very much depends on the examples you take. How about Firefox or Chrome versus Internet Explorer? Or Banshee versus Windows Media Player (or iTunes for that matter).

By the way, I have seen some professional designers who prefer Blender over 3D Max and Maya any day. It's just that the user interface is a bit painful to get started with (it relies highly on keyboard shortcuts).

And don't forget that Cinepaint is used by many studios over commercial programs.

My comment about Microsoft bashing was more circling on the irony of open source/free software users being ok with proprietary licenses, but feeling happy enough in the past (and present) to bash Microsoft for the very same things. I know most of you here, and I know you well enough via previous online communications to know what's been said in the past, and of the general dislike of Microsoft and it's products.

Ok, then come up with a post where I say that Office is a bad product. Yes, I have said that about Windows, because I think it is true. It looks old and is terribly slow. My new laptop came with Vista, and it was practically unusable on a Core CPU (single core) with 2 GB RAM.

How's that for customer service? You could argue that they can afford to do that, since their retail dominance is so high, etc.

Have you tried to report a serious bug to Microsoft, and see how they handle that? Have you bought a laptop that comes with Windows, and tried to get a refund where both the manufacturer and Microsoft point fingers at eachother? For comparison, I have communicated a lot in the past with Red Hat, even when I was no customer of them, they were always quickly following up to bug reports.

Most free software and open source software *lacks* real support.

Of course, how can someone provide support for free. If you want free support, you are limited to Internet forums. But if you buy, say RHEL, you do get support.

Our desktop workstations run Windows btw, because they need to be *productive* in a work environment.

At my work, most people use Linux on the desktop, and they are productive ;).

Linux uptake is at the smallest amount imho that I've seen in the past ten years. In fact, I'd say it's, in all honesty, in decline.

I beg to disagree, with the rise of Ubuntu I see many new GNU/Linux users popping up everywhere. While not many old hands are leaving. Some moved to OS X, but it's not that spectacular.

OS X is absolutely making a killing in the market, and for good reason. Powerful, looks good, great UI, runs well, pretty stable and secure, and has a UNIX backbone if you want it.

As I said in the past, OS X is not all that impressive. It's quite slow, and it does have it's share of nasty bugs. And Apple is very able to introduce new bugs on perfectly working systems with 'minor updates'. The grass always looks greener on the other side, but it is not. Oh, and it is expensive if you want to have half-decent hardware.

Plenty of *quality* software runs on it, and runs well.

Like? The primary things I can think of are the Adobe programs, Microsoft Office, and some Apple applications (iWorks, Aperture). Most of the other programs on OS X aren't that great. Many games are even quite buggy, hanging often. They run just as well as under Wine or Cedega on Linux. Oh, and you pay all the $#( way. Many basic applications are 30 or 40 dollars. Even for simple things like mounting sftp connections as a disk.

[danieldk]

Woohoo, I have received my serial number after some PayPal-fu (and they even replied to my e-mail within a few hours). So, hopefully I'll soon have some time to give the latest installment a serious look.