I wonder if you have actually installed and used StarOffice 7. I noticed you say: The reported difference.... and we added extra fonts. But that doesn't account for the improved look and feel of the entire application.On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 18:38, ian wrote:On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 15:40, Tom Adelstein wrote:firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:<snip>Ian, you don't have to convince me :-)I'm not trying to, I'm genuinely curious because AFAIK. Apart from some proprietary filters such as for WP, some clip art and templates, OO.o 1.1 and SO7 are identical code subject to the same QA procedures. It is possible that releases have some different defaults eg I found some problems with 3D rendering due to the OpenGL defaults that might or might not have happened with different default settings.I'll ask and find out as I would be interested to know if there are fundamental QA differences. In fact OO.o 1.1.1 is being released and this probably fixes bugs that will not be fixed in SO 7.0I'm very surprised at this response. A world of difference exists between Star Office 7 and OOo and it's very obvious. I see no reason to complain about OOo in any way.I'm only interested in accuracy. I have asked the question on a discussion list that will know. In principle Sun could do separate development work on SO and not on OO.o but all the information I have had to this point suggests that is not how things are currently done, but I have never asked the specific question. So let's know the facts from the people that manage the project.However, given the choice, users in my office will run SO7 from an X server over native installs of OOo on their workstations. Why is that? From what I can see it's the finishing touches especially overall screen rendering. OOo comes off fuzzy enough to notice and SO7 comes off clear as a bell, bright and finished.That's strange because I have OO.o 1.1 running here on Linux and Windows XP and neither appear fuzzy to me. When you say fuzzy do you mean font rendering, graphics or something else?The reported difference between SO7 and OO.o may be due to differences in font installation. It may be that the installer for SO7 makes sure it installs a nice set of fonts, which are included and are not open source. This would result in a nicer look than a default OO.o install. Here at Hypercube Systems, we have installed a set of extra fonts for OO.o and these look very spiffy. If there are fonts on the system that are blocky, then they can be used by OO.o, but it can't get round the blockyness. Times is one in point - won't anti alias, whereas Times New Roman does. Seb James
I really don't want to try and one-up anyone or be "right" or anything like that. I personally believe OOo saved the entire Linux community from utter failure at least on the desktop and probably (who knows) on the server side too from a trickle down effect.
The point is simple: Schools can have SO 7 for free. Teachers can get the cirriculum and use it for free for their classes. Any constitutent of the school can also obtain the software for free.
Now, the software IMHO is so much better that I want to see it out there. I'm even working on getting a major University to offer college semester hours to teachers and high school students for completing the core cirriculum from Sun. I may get that complete in days not weeks.
None of that will happen with OOo. Put the best stuff in the schools and if people want to be open about it, they can always look at the core technology by looking at OOo. Whatever Sun did to make SO7 better has to be fringe kinds of things and I doubt it will make much difference.
I just don't see why anyone wants to argue about the difference, except to be "politically correct" in the eyes of whatever they believe is Open Source. Give the people SO 7 because it's a commercially acceptible product and makes the kids parents take notice.