My bold position in proselytizing Microsoft products seems to be going against the norm.
In his blog post here about the 2007 Microsoft Office system versus OpenOffice, the writer starts out by disagreeing with my post series on the Office-less office.
Let me make my position very clear: in the SMB space specifically, the benefits of open source software are still very unclear.
Looking at actual dollar figures are a canard.
Without an IT tech on hand, how would issues be resolved?
Who do you call/contact for even the most mundane of problems?
- Is it the systems integrator/VAR/solutions provider who sold you the system(s) in the first place and has his/her consulting meter running?
- Alternatively, do you get online and go to the forums to see if there is a hack/shim/patch from someone you know absolutely nothing about?
- Or, do you, as is preached by open source adherents, look at the source code to make modifications?
What are you, kidding me?
In my 27 years working with computers, I have never had the inclination to look at code for a program I didn’t either write, was involved in the development of, or felt was a requirement for the delivery of additional code we would be developing.
However, we should subject small business owners, who have neither the personnel resources of an IT department, nor the financial resources to waste on seeking a code jock, to looking at code or searching online for solution to problems?
The writer then goes on to figuratively whip out his calculator, and calculate the costs involved with implementing the last couple Microsoft Office editions.
While the numbers might seem right, in actuality, they are wrong!
And the writer should know this.
For the purchase of 50 seats, any company would be way into the requirement for getting Microsoft Licensing ; for which, BTW, the minimum number of licenses, spread over both operating system software and productivity applications is just 5 licenses. Purchasing 50 licenses would definitely put you deep into discount territory. And he knows it. Or, should know that.
He glossies over the incompatibility issues inherent in the cross-application, cross-platform process he outlined.
What anyone should realize is this: what seems effortless to IT professionals and/or experts is a totally different kettle of fish for endusers. For the small business owner, the situation is especially dire since every issue has a direct bearing on his competitiveness and profitability.
However, he would subject that business owner to the inconsistencies and incompatibilities of OpenOffice/StarOffice because it might be cheaper going in?
Moreover, why would you, or for that matter, why should you, have a mixed set of office suites in a small business? What sense does it make for compatibility?
The writer barely touches on the advantages of the Office Open XML (OOXML) EMCA standard, which is the open, royalty-free, XML-based file formats used throughout the 2007 Microsoft Office system.
Instead, this avowed open source advocate would take potshots at the entire Microsoft Subnet for attempting to attenuate the vociferous noisemaking of the open source crowd, and elucidating the readership on the many benefits of Microsoft’s software.
The best tool for the job is one that suits the client’s needs and budget, not the amount of ducats you can squeeze from the customer in the name of providing value-added services to him/her.
Most of the time, the monies saved by the customer in choosing open source software over commercial software is never realized as actual savings, since it invariably goes directly into the coffers of the open source ‘consultant’ who just conned him into robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Have you implemented OpenOffice over the Microsoft Office system, and still retained your client after 12 months? Let us know here or email me at john.obeto@absolutevista.com.
Visit Microsoft Subnet for more opinons and news. http://www.networkworld.comhttps://www.networkworld.com//subnets/microsoft/
