Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ewing · Feb 6, 2007, 03:03 AM

openoffice
dl'd, installed from desktop
couldn't find in apps
*then* i read instructions
supposed to drag into apps then install
did that - drug in, executed file again
now in finder i see 2 x openoffice.org2.1 or whatever
installed twice?
is there an os x equivalent to "add/remove programs" somewhere to double check & remove the 2nd redundant copy if it's there?
:s

oh, and yes - i made sure to follow the instructions and install x11 first - then i assumed a double click of the recently dl'd openoffice.org file on the mac desktop would install it where it needed to go like installing something in windows... i was wrong. d'oh!

anyone out there that can enlighten me? thanks!

smsm1 · Feb 6, 2007, 07:14 AM

You probably installed ooo before and have forgotten.

Installation of OpenOffice.org is a simple matter of drag and drop.

You can simply move OpenOffice.org to the trash, and empty the trash to remove OpenOffice.org.

Installation will get easier with OpenOffice.org 2.2 which is due out within about a month assuming no show stoppers are found.

wataru · Feb 6, 2007, 08:27 AM

Unless there's some special reason you need that version of OO.o, you should use NeoOffice, which is much easier to install and fits into the OS X environment much more nicely.

ewing · Feb 6, 2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by wataru

Unless there's some special reason you need that version of OO.o, you should use NeoOffice, which is much easier to install and fits into the OS X environment much more nicely.

no special reason

never heard of neo office though...

is it compatible with other office suites? ie export filetypes etc

JKT · Feb 6, 2007, 04:35 PM

NeoOffice is a modification of OpenOffice.org that runs natively in OS X, rather than using X11. In other words, it'll open the same filetypes as OpenOffice.org.

http://trinity.neooffice.org

ewing · Feb 6, 2007, 04:56 PM

interesting.

someone on another forum said that neoffice ran very slowly for them.

is it a concern at all in comparison to the x11 ooo?

JKT · Feb 6, 2007, 07:03 PM

Some aspects of NeoOffice are slower (e.g. slideshow performance), but being able to use the system fonts, and having a much more Mac-like appearance and user experience (such as OS X Open and Save dialogues, drag and drop support, language support, input support, etc) outweigh those for me. Also, not having to wait for X11 to load, then OpenOffice.org load is a big bonus too. FWIW, there isn't anything to stop you trying out both and seeing which you prefer.

wataru · Feb 7, 2007, 10:04 AM

That might have been me. NeoOffice does run pretty slow on my 800MHz iBook G4. But its advantages over OO.o more than make up for that, and you can improve performance a good amount by tweaking the memory settings.

ewing · Feb 7, 2007, 11:54 AM

interesting.

well, if i don't end up getting office for mac 2004, then i think i'll dl trinity neo office & give that a whirl.

i think it'd run ok, seeing as i'll rarely use the slide show (if ever) & just bought a brand spanking new macbook 2.0ghz w/ a gig of ram. should handle it, especially if there're software memory settings that can be tweaked for better performance.

JKT · Feb 7, 2007, 03:37 PM

Its performance on a Macbook could actually be better than MS Office 2004 as it will run natively (that doesn't mean it will fly as the current performance issues won't magically disappear, e.g. scrolling long files is a bit poor as well) whereas MS Office 2004 will run in Rosetta. However, I am not speaking from experience so YMMV.

ewing · Feb 7, 2007, 07:47 PM

and "rosetta" would be?

also, if you were me - given the options - would you run trinity n.o., ooo, or office for mac 2004?

will trinity.neooffice.org allow the same export file types as ooo? ie ms office format, should i have to email something to a pc user?

wataru · Feb 8, 2007, 07:19 AM

The software is called "NeoOffice", not "trinity.neooffice.org". And like we've been saying, yes, it has the same capabilities as the standard OO.o.

Since NeoOffice is free, you might as well give it a shot before spending money on Office 2004. I don't use Office at all--NeoOffice meets all my needs.

About Rosetta, just do little research on your own for crying out loud.

JKT · Feb 8, 2007, 04:01 PM

Due to the switch from PowerPC CPUs in Macs to using Intel x86 CPUs, Apple has included software in the Intel version of OS X called Rosetta that enables (most) software coded for PPC CPUs to run on Intel machines - without it, due to the differences between the PPC and x86 CPU architecture, PPC apps would not work on Intel Macs. Because of the cost of doing this, non-Intel native software will run more slowly than native Intel software. Mac Office 2004 is a PPC application and therefore has to run using Rosetta on an Intel Mac and therefore runs slower than it would do if it were a native Intel application (I believe it runs at about the same speed as if it were on an ~1.5GHz PPC Mac). To get an Intel native version of MS Office, you will have to wait until the MacBU at MS releases the next version of Office for the Mac (a full price upgrade when it arrives).

NeoOffice is offered as an Intel native version so it will run without the need for Rosetta, therefore, it could be quicker than Office 2004 on an Intel Mac.

Note, you will hear about Universal Binaries when discussing Mac software these days - this an application that carries both PPC and Intel native versions in its package so that the same download will run on both PPC and Intel Macs at native speeds.

FWIW, I'll say it again NeoOffice IS OpenOffice.org - there isn't anything that OpenOffice.org can do that NeoOffice can't do*. The reason for the difference in the name is that the code that allows NeoOffice to run natively is offered under the GPL open source software licence whereas OpenOffice.org is under some funny licence that Sun created which is more restrictive and has commercial implications that the NeoOffice coders don't accept.

* However, due to the amount of effort required in making NeoOffice run natively, it often takes the two people involved a while to roll out updates so the version number of OpenOffice.org that NeoOffice is based on can be a bit behind (e.g. OpenOffice.org is currently at version 2.1 and NeoOffice is at version 2.0.x).

smsm1 · Feb 8, 2007, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by JKT

Some aspects of NeoOffice are slower (e.g. slideshow performance), but being able to use the system fonts

Since OpenOffice.org 2.0.4 or 2.0.3, OpenOffice.org would translate all current fonts on first launch. Removing a file, will give you the option to run the conversion process again.

smsm1 · Feb 8, 2007, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by JKT

OpenOffice.org is under some funny licence that Sun created which is more restrictive and has commercial implications that the NeoOffice coders don't accept.

Actually OpenOffice.org is currently licensed under LGPL. The Sun license was abandoned with the release of the beta of OpenOffice.org 2. Also OpenOffice.org was dual licensed under the Sun and LGPL licenses.

ewing · Feb 8, 2007, 10:45 PM

ok... read, comprehended etc & so forth (thanks for the info) - but i'm still left with the question of whether i should run neooffice.org or office 2004 for mac? the info posted here/elsewhere is making me lean towards downloading neooffice.

JKT · Feb 9, 2007, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by smsm1

Since OpenOffice.org 2.0.4 or 2.0.3, OpenOffice.org would translate all current fonts on first launch. Removing a file, will give you the option to run the conversion process again.

True, but that isn't using the native OS X fonts, that is using converted versions of them (and if you have a few thousand fonts on your system, this is also very annoying duplication and wasted disk space. It also means that you see all of those thousand or so fonts in the menu in OpenOffice.org even if you have specifically disabled them under OS X in e.g. Font Book). However, what I meant to imply is that it also doesn't use the native OS X font display so fonts look like arse in X11, and you can't use Font managers to control their activity in the app.

JKT · Feb 9, 2007, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by smsm1

Actually OpenOffice.org is currently licensed under LGPL. The Sun license was abandoned with the release of the beta of OpenOffice.org 2. Also OpenOffice.org was dual licensed under the Sun and LGPL licenses.

Again, true, but this wasn't the case when the NeoOffice project started, and I was trying to give the short and simple explanation. If you want full details, go to the trinity website.

(Oops, just reread my post and I should have said "was under some funny Sun licence", not "is")

wataru · Feb 9, 2007, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by ewing

ok... read, comprehended etc & so forth (thanks for the info) - but i'm still left with the question of whether i should run neooffice.org or office 2004 for mac? the info posted here/elsewhere is making me lean towards downloading neooffice.

Um, one is free and the other isn't. How is this even a question? Try NeoOffice, and if it doesn't meet your needs then buy Office 2004. This isn't rocket science.