Straying off the ranch, I have been testing IBM’s Lotus Symphony, the latest incarnation (in name only) of the DOS-era integrated program of the same name.
For this test, I focused on two aspects, usability and compatibility, as being more important to my constituency than others, since most companies considering any of these programs would probably be doing so with a current inventory of documents already saved in the Microsoft Office format.
Concurrent with this test, I also tested StarOffice, version 8, from Sun Microsystems since it is the suite the Open Office project is based upon.
I also limited myself to three modules of StarOffice, in order to be fair to the three modules currently in Lotus Symphony.
Availability:
Lotus Symphony is available for downloading from IBM’s website, though you would need to Live Search the name to get to the download page; said page being well hidden from prying eyes. At a cost of free, and without the expected registration hassles, I downloaded the software.
StarOffice was similarly not very visible from the default Sun landing page, however, it was only two clicks away. Sun though, required registration before allowing a download. After entering my favorite bugmenot credentials, I acquired it, for the cost of a free 90-day trial as well.
Cost
Currently, Lotus Symphony is free, while there is a cost of about $70 US per annum for StarOffice.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Editor's note ... check out two more reviews: OpenOffice fan James Gaskin reviews Lotus Symphony (and likes it). Plus, Kevin Tolly reviews Lotus Symphony (and likes it, too).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Installation
I tested each office suite in a separate x86 Windows Vista™ virtual machine with 2 GB of RAM each. Each VM was pristine, and was patched with the latest updates.
Lotus Symphony took a while to install, the non-standard installer not helping as well. It installed completely.
StarOffice installed completely as well.
Usability
Word Processor
My first thoughts on seeing the Symphony UI: clunky. Taking an inordinate amount of screen space, on the right side of the screen no less, was a vertical toolbar a la Windows Vista’s Sidebar. It also had a GNOME-like feel to it. Aesthetically, it was pleasing….until you realized that the default visible buttons were inadequate for anything other than the most basic of editing tasks.
StarOffice had the Office 2003 interface working for it. Which still has some legs. However, the failings of that UI is also present in the fact that most commands are not exposed to the user; with most being two to three levels deep
Spreadsheet
Both programs sport a basic spreadsheet UI that is virtually generic.
Presentation
Here again, Lotus Symphony’s default page showed that annoying, rather large vertical toolbar.
StarOffice adhered mostly to the PowerPoint (pre 2007) convention, increasing usability.
Compatibility
Word Processing: For this test, I opened the three documents in both program: a 304-page mixed text and graphics document, a 799-page mostly text, (Microsoft Word) default settings document, and a 278-page text-only version of the New Testament, King James version.
The text-only New Testament opened just fine. In the other two documents, graphic elements were misplaced, with lots of unneeded white spaces.
Spreadsheet. For this test, I opened three documents: a small spreadsheet consisting of 6 tabs and a maximum of 400 rows by 6 columns, a spreadsheet consisting of 5 sections and a 2500 rows by 13 columns, and a graphics-heavy 20-section spreadsheet. Somewhat accordingly, this last document presented the most problems, with graphic elements strewed randomly across the page.
Presentation: I used a 36-slide deck, a 46-slide deck, and a 32-slide deck for this test. While the programs opened the documents, it was bewildering to note that some of the text was off kilter. In fact, in one of the slides, some of the text had achieved a 180-degree rotation during conversion!
Without a doubt, both suites could open pre 2007-era Microsoft Office documents.
However, there were numerous artifacts and errors in the presented documents. For basic text, this would not be a big deal, but for companies with a large inventory of elaborate documents, this issue would become problematic very quickly, requiring some reformatting, and probably a labor position created to do just that.
Conclusions
I came away impressed at the improvements in the OpenOffice suites with respect to compatibility with Microsoft Office.
However, all is not well.
Document fidelity is a BIG problem. For inventoried documents of all sorts, this could lead to a catastrophe.
In functionality, the suites are OK if rudimentary documents are all that need to be created. For which I ask, why not use the (free) included WordPad applet in each and every copy of Microsoft Windows?
IBM Lotus Symphony. While this is a beta, it fails miserably. It is slow; very, very slow.
The UI frankly sucks. It is about as counterintuitive as one can get, sort of harking back to a warmed-over OS/2 Presentation Manager UI which, at that time, aimed to shatter the norm and attempted to introduce a new paradigm into graphical computing interfaces.
Furthermore, a feature (I hope it is a bug!) of the program disallows opening more than one document at a time from Windows Explorer. It takes forever to open/convert Microsoft Office documents, and it allows no customizations other that selecting/deselecting allowing the program to run when Windows launches. I forgot: clicking ‘OPEN’ in any of Symphony’s applications, starts a new document! Yes, in Symphonyland, OPEN=NEW! Do I have to mention the training requirements?
Lotus Symphony: A NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME player.
As befits a program in its eighth iteration, StarOffice is a lot more polished and capable than Lotus Symphony. It installed easily, used easily recognizable icons and the UI, while reminiscent of Office 2003, was extremely easy to navigate, and use. Familiarity with Office 2003 would be a selling point of StarOffice, though it also introduced presentation errors into documents created with Office 2003.
Generally, the ODF documents were much smaller than their Office 2003 counterparts were, and fractionally smaller than OOXML documents across the board.
As the expected Messiah for ODF, Lotus Symphony is definitely not ready to take that mantle, and, if it is further developed along the lines currently shown in this beta, it will fail woefully. The clout of its parent notwithstanding.
StarOffice on the other hand, represents the state of the art for the ODF format. If we were still in 2003! It is a poor man’s Lexus to Microsoft Office’s Mercedes-Benz; a somewhat minimally capable facsimile of the real deal.
While impressed by the functionality of StarOffice and the promise (for some, not me) of ODF, I am totally flummoxed by the religious fervor accorded it by zealots.
This is it?
One final thought. Looking at two distinct programs working off the same codebase supposedly, and getting the diametrically opposed user experiences from both, I cannot help but remember that phrase Alex Wolfe used when describing the myriad number of versions of Linux: Linux is a forking mess!
Will the ODF format fall prey to this when it dawns on backers that OOXML and Microsoft won’t be going anywhere? Let the infighting begin.
For help in creating elaborate documents of the kind I utilized in this test, and indeed, for your enterprise using Microsoft Word 2007, I heartily recommend Microsoft Office Word 2007 Inside Out, by Katherine Murray, Mary Millhollon, and Beth Melton (ISBN# 978-0-7356-2330-9). The book (& CD combo) delves deep into what you need to become a seasoned veteran of the Word processing or report creation set. Highly recommended as the only resource. (Plus, I'm quoted on Page 9)
Visit Microsoft Subnet for more opinions and news.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Vista vs. XP
Just out of curiosity, did you also try running these programs in XP? I wouldn't expect much of a difference, but since the vast majority of business level users are still running XP, testing in that environment would seem appropriate.
Tested on XP
Taking your suggestion, I tested both programs on Microsoft Windows XP SP2, with 512MB MB RAM. My results remained roughly the same, the only difference being that StarOffice opening/converting Microsoft Office 2003 format documents perceptable faster than in Windows Vista, and many orders of magnitude faster than Lotus Symphony.
Review of Pretenders to the Office Throne
Another article misguiding the general populous from a author who sells Microsoft products for a living (AKA. Microsoft Zealot) and who doesn't care that he needs to use hardware over sized just to run the inefficient OS and application code.
His credibility is lost to all but die hard MS fans by his attempt to discredit good products for personal financial gain (selling more of his MS software).
Also, his style leaves a bad taste in one's mouth; comments like, "The UI frankly sucks." is something my seventh grader would write, not a "professional".
Casting fear and uncertainty about competing products has always been one of the first tools used when someone attempts to make themselves and their products look more impressive than they really are.
I also have tested Microsoft Office, Open Office (Star Office), and IBM Lotus Suite on a variety of platforms, none of which was Vista. My personal choice was Lotus because I liked the features and stability over MSO, my opinion.
My test systems consisted of 512MB Pentium 4 running XP because that is what I, and most of the business world, use today. And Open Office and Lotus still run on a 128MB P3 (or lower-which a lot of users have), while MSO 2007 can not.
I tried to open a file in MSO 2007 WORD, it took 10 minutes and browsing Help to find the FILE/OPEN option (what happened to Microsoft's promise of compatibility between versions - oh, another broken promise).
Without retraining, end users are lost and confused in MSO 2007. Any company contemplating upgrading to MSO 2007 should save the money and use the retraining effort to move to Open Office.
As an Open Office user, I can communicate with anyone on the planet in a format that is readable by whatever product they use.
In a Feature per Dollar comparison, Open Office wins hands down, without doubt.
As for ODT vs. OOXML, frankly I choose the ISO Standard. No doubt OOXML will become an ISO standard and that is a good thing, it will be less fluid then.
I am a practical user who likes applications that get the job done with a reasonable cost. I use Open Office and am happy (AKA. Productivity Zealot).
MSO 2007 is a good product if you have the hardware and OS to support it but there are other good products on the market for the majority of us.
In my "professional" opinion, there is a trend toward network based office applications, like Google and Symphony.
While they may not be the prettiest or have the most bells and whistles, businesses will select them because of portability, accessibility, ease of use, and cost.
Wrong in every aspect
Henry, you step into my parlor trying to correct me, an Englishman, and then make an error like the ‘general populous’? Que?
Let us work through you commentary for a second, shall we?
Your personal favorite was Lotus over MSO”…because I liked the features and stability over MSO, my opinion. “
In the initial beta?
Henry, you are betraying your roots as an employee or shill for IBM.
I don’t know what businesses you either run, or support. However, most of them, from the December 2004 EOY buying season, have spec’d systems with 1 GB of RAM. Then again, that might not be if they were running off of a System 36 or whatever moniker glosses that fossil today.
Why would any business run on 128MB of RAM in 2007, Sr. Hemetz? If you have any clients that do, then you have a duty to them to bring them into this millennium; anything other than that, then you have failed woefully in providing the best computing environment for your client(s). Woefully!
Your assertion that the 2007 Microsoft Office Word program could not open a down-level Microsoft Office document is a lie. A flat out LIE. A fabrication. A falsehood! Prove it to me and the world. Include the document for out testing. Anytime!
Why are the ODF zealots afraid of a little competition? If your stuff is so hot, why have a hissy fit when Microsoft comes up with a better solution? Let the market decide, right? If you believe so, Petiton the ISO, so the real world can see and experience the goodness in ODF that you seem to.
As an OpenOffice user, you can communicate with the 3% or so users of that doc format. Mix in the users of (Adobe’s) Acrobat format, and the number rises slightly. Add you capability to open Pre-version 2007 Microsoft Office format documents, albeit, erroneously, then it maxes out. But, you do not reveal that here, right?
Buddy, there isn’t a trend towards network-based office applications. No matter what the refrain is in Armonk, the mainframe ain’t coming back.
Your new mantra, Henry, should be, “the mainframe isn’t coming back, long live personal computing. The mainframe isn’t coming back, long live personal computing….”
Thanks for stopping by, and do not hesitate to attempt to correct me evrytime I seem to go offtrack.
About the review...
I can't say that any of the examples given are incorrect nor inaccurate but lets get some things and expectations straight about Lotus Symphony.
It's BETA software based on a 1.1 version of Open office so it's not going to load/run like the latest version of office 2007. The code underlying Symphony is not the same code under staroffice - do some research.
I've seen Symphony render complex .doc format very well and I've seen Office 2007 documents render Office 2000/97 documents poorly - you could likely find a document to prove/disprove your position every time.
Next, assuming that most people generate documents rather than load 200+ pages of file for sport, can it do the job?
Can it generate a two page memo with header and footers?
Can it create a forty page report with images, index and table of contents?
Can Calc help me create a quote with a company logo and print it?
Do these things and write about the experience.
Even if you hated each step I could at least understand where the software let you down.
As for different experiences between staroffice and Symphony, that's the whole point. Different strokes for different folks, but at the end of the day document interchange is still possible.
Back when Office 97 came out there was hell because of doc format incompatibility and now the same thing with office 2007. This will be money spent that will add no functional benefit to the majority of business and add nothing to the bottom line. I've seen this through various upgrades from Office 95 to 2003, each bringing time lost when vendors upgraded too soon or too late, or when we had to change to "keep up". This is not to say others will not be happy with the upgrade.
Finally, MS Office is a solid, strong product with some great features. Do it justice by providing some balance in reporting on its alternatives.
Thank you