Talk:Comparison of office suites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] eDesk Online

"online office" includes the following Web 2.0 functions: webmail, calendar, accountancy, and taxation. All the products are integrated with each other and run out of a webtop. There is a search application which displays results across the universe of the user's data.... eDeskOnline is a complete online office suite. In comparison with other online office suites like Zimbra desktop, easy office etc. eDeskOnline is better because, it is compatible with OpenDocuments and Microsoft Office file formats. Nbpandya 14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you are suggesting ? Are you suggeting inclusion ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is already a section discussing the inclusion off eDesk Online lower down this page; please see that. -- simxp (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zimbra Desktop

Zimbra, one of the most popular web-based office suites, has just announced Zimbra Desktop - which provides offline access to the AJAX-powered product. Offering offline access is a growing trend amongst product developers, and obviously a feature the users are longing for. Firefox 3 will be implementing offline access to AJAX applications and a number of other companies are launching their own solutions (Adobe’s Apollo, Joyent’s Slingshot, and Dekoh). Nbpandya 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux Office suites

References

List of Linux Office suites and a brief comparison: The leading office suite for Linux is currently Star Office 6.0 from Sun. The pure open source version is available as OpenOffice 1.1 (OpenOffice.org). It supports Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint document files. OpenOffice also includes a draw package and math symbol graphics package. OpenOffice 1.0.2 now ships with Red Hat 9.0. It's Microsoft document filters have passed all of my tests. In one case a dimmed water mark graphic came out fully opaque instead of translucent but this is the only variation from perfect that I have found.

www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxTutorialOfficeSuites.html Nbpandya 10:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palm Office Suites

Comparison & brief introduction of some Palm Office Suites. http://www.mobiletechreview.com/software/palm_office.htm Nbpandya 10:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appleworks Platform Listing

It should be noted at Appleworks for Windows is only available through educational markets, and not useable by the general public.

And what about Applixware Office?

[edit] Format compatibilites

Does anyone think maybe we should list which suites are compatible with OpenDocument and Microsoft Office file formats?

Well, I've added a link to List of applications supporting OpenDocument. Barefootguru 18:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that rather then having open document capability as part of the general section there should be a section listing outlining which office suites are compatible with the various different document formats out there. Also I think the current general matrix is a bit misleading because it seems to be focused on open source things but not on the features provided by some of the proprietary platforms. ----205.250.137.56 19:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that we list support for Opendocument but not Office file support. Many more people care about the latter

Exactly what I was coming here to say. .doc support makes or breaks an office suite for many people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.8.105.223 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Format incompatibilities exist all across the board. MS Office 2003 and MS Office 2007 themselves have compatibility issues. I don't even want to get started on format incompatibilities between Windows and MAC version of MS Office. It would be very hard to characterize the differences in incompatibilities among the different office suites. I think that a generic statement that "complex documents created with one version may have format incompatibilities when opened with another version of the same office suite" would do the job. (Bulletgani (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Google

Should we add a section on Google Docs and Spreadsheets? I mean I think it is pretty obvious that google wants to provide a fully "online" office suite that will eventually compete with other office suites including Microsoft Office.

[edit] Gnome office

I was surprised to see Evolution, GIMP, Inkscape, DIA and Planer in GO. There are only 3 components in Gnome office : Abiword, Gnumeric and Mergeant. See : http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/ In an other And, Kontact is said not to be part of Koffice ...... ( and that's true, Neither is Outlook an MS office component).

"Neither is Outlook an MS office component" -- It most certainly is. Outlook's full name is even 'Microsoft Office Outlook. -- simxp (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Components Section

Visio and Project are listed as components of the MS Office suite. To my knowledge they are not nor ever have been a main component of the Office suite. They are separate applications that are classified as part of the Office system, but not what I would consider 'main components' because they are not available in any of the suite options. I think the inclusion of them in the matrix is a little misleading.

I also agree with the above comment about creating a separate matrix for file compatability.

Errors
Someone has kindly listed "Yes, with certain drawing elements in OpenOffice.org Draw" listed for NeoOffice's email support. And can everyone remember to sign their comments please?--Rfsmit 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, NeoOffice includes the same components as OpenOffice.org (NeoOffice Writer, etc.), so they should have identical green and red boxes. Neither OpenOffice.org nor NeoOffice feature an email client (they can pass files to your default email client). Both have a HTML editing application, "Writer/Web", too. Can someone kindly correct these errors/omissions? Thanks! --66.32.203.49 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the cost of Microsoft Office not documented but all others are?

"Varies by edition and location"? Well how about putting a range. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Christopher (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Sanjiv: what exactly do you mean by that? Pricing information is certianly readily available -- it would be rather hard to persuade people to buy it otherwise! A quick Google reveals that Home edition RRP = $149.95, Standard edition RRP = $399.95, Professional Edition RRP = $499.95. Any suggestions on the best way to condense that into a single line in the table ("Varies by edition: from $149.95 for Home edition", perhaps?) Simxp 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
a)The cost of MSO depends upon which version you buy, and which locale you buy, MSO 2003 (Japanese) SBE is about US$100 more than MSO 2003 (US English) SBE if bought in Redmond, Washington. In Toyko, Japan, the price differential is reversed. b) The other proprietary office suites don't have the number of different versions that MSO has. (There were roughly 500 different versions of MSO 2003.)jonathon 08:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IBM Works

How about adding this one? Though few use it now it was a big deal back in its day. Btyner 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sauver Office

I deleted this from the tables because:

  • It is a rebranded version of OOo;
  • Google has seven hits for the term "Sauver Office";

[edit] WordPerfect Office

Corel WordPerfect Office 8.0 was released for Linux back in 1999. I'm not sure whether to add that as a footnote to the article, or not, though. My source is an Install CD that doesn't have any documentation. jonathon 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OOo

There are OOo templates for project management functions. Pert chart, GANTT chart, Scheduling, Materials, etc. They aren't packaged together, but they will work with each other. Should that space be left as "no', or changed to "partial (1)" where (1) is a note saying "with extensions"?

http://www.ooomacros.org/user.php has the GANTT Chart macro & PERT Chart macro. jonathon 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Staroffice and openoffice should have the same function/Main components, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.243.41 (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What is Novel Openoffice.org ? ..... couldn't find a product called "Novel Openoffice.org" (Bulletgani (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

OpenOffice.org Novell Edition[1] Ghettoblaster (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ubuntu and Redhat also has have their own version of Openoffice.org. Most distrubutions slightly change the vanilla openoffice.org in accordance to their philosophy. I believe Novel derives their version of openoffice from go-oo. Do we want to present all of there in this section ? (Bulletgani (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
What about Lotus Symphony and StarOffice? Both are also based on Open Office. Where do you draw the line? IMHO it is a different Office Suite when there are different features, even if it is derived from the same code base. This is similar to Netscape Navigator and Firefox. AFAIK Open Office under Ubuntu and Redhat does just have some fancy new icons and no big feature changes. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Online OS

If no office suites support it and/or it's not notable enough to have an article, why is this a component of the table on platform compatibility? 86.147.209.239 16:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I searched through the history: it was added in by these edits: [2], [3]; as you can see, the second edit also added in the 'eDesk Online' office suite, which was listed as running on 'OnlineOS'. A Google search quickly reveals that 'eDesk online' and 'OnlineOS' are, in fact, the same product: eDesk online is an online operating system, which includes a built-in office suite. The 'eDesk Online' row was later removed from the table for non-notability after its article was deleted, but somehow, the 'OnlineOS' column escaped. I'll delete it now. -- simxp (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operating System Support: Unix?

Wondering if someone could clear up exactly what operating system the article is referring to when it says 'Unix'. Solaris? AIX? HP-UX? Jackster (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major Language Support

Word for OS X does not support all the world's major languages. It has zero support for Hebrew for example and any RTL language. Quite an omission for a 'Word processor'. 221.133.86.7 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Every word processor fails to correctly render some writing systems. Whether or not that omission is major, depends upon how much one uses that writing system.jonathon (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Severe Bias

There is a bias. OpenDocument support is not an end all feature. It should not be the only file type listed. Instead use a list of filetypes supported. This would remove the bias. I don't care how much you hate other file types or support the "Free" software movement. Additionally Microsoft has an actual price on its website. Use it. I don't care if it varies. Its a price. Stop the FUD against MS just because your think its cool to mispell Windows, and us a $ symbol to insult Microsoft. - Thekittenofterra (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The article lists file formats which have ISO certification. Thus far ISO/EIC 26300 is the only one that qualifies. If ECMA 376 ever becomes an ISO standard, then it can be added.jonathon (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is practical to list file-types that are supported. Which version with which patches is going to be the "Standard" to use?jonathon (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Section _ Planning to add to it ..

I don't see that any of those should be there. Office suite is already linked to in the lead. Comparison of office suites is this article! For the Office (disambiguation) page, if someone's at this article, we already know that they're interested in office suites rather than, say, "Office (band)". And Online Office is already linked to. -- simxp (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
ok _ noted Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] you should have first discussed

Feedmecereal : you have added a link to section = See also titled List of applications supporting OpenDocument .


I think you should have first discussed it here . Can you please revert your changes. Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Edits do not have to be discussed 1st. You can revert anything you don't like but its best to enter a discussion rather than continue to revert/insert if 2 or more editors disagree. GameKeeper (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


GameKeeper: Thanks for your inputs. I shall wait a week for the response from Feedmecereal Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with List of Office Suites... Straw Poll

Vote For

Vote Against


Please also read the merge discussion which has taken place at Talk:List of office suites#Additional discussion


Done / Moved / Re directed Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Works

When apple works has been discontinued, as mentioned in the table, why should it still find a place in the table? Should it not be removed from the table? Dhshah (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't think so. I think it should stay. It has historical value. The wikipedia article isn't about advertising only currently available software. Does that make sense? -- Swerdnaneb 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


If discontinued, then it should move to a historical section : Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Swerdnaneb, wikipedia articles are not about advertising at all. Whether they are current or historical, it does not matter. Advertising is simply not accepted. The reason why I raised this issue, is to make the comparison more helpful and relevant for readers. I also agree with your point of appreciating the historical value. Keeping that in mind, I somewhat agree with Sanjiv swarup that we can have a historical section to separate these entries. But again i m not so sure that having multiple tables will be the best solution. Any better ideas out there? Anyone? Dhshah (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] moved FROM List of office suites Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of eDesk Online

According to Office suite: "Most office application suites include at least a word processor and a spreadsheet element. In addition to these, the suite may contain a presentation program, database tool, graphics suite and communications tools. An office suite may also include an email client and a personal information manager or groupware package."

If we were to apply the above definition, then eDesk Online qualifies as an office application suite. It contains a word processor and a spreadsheet element. They also have a database tool which they call eCabinet which allows you to create customised database structures. They also have an email client and a personal information manager in the form of Calendar.

Please see here Features for details on including eDesk Online. Pl. kindly provide your thoughts. Dhshah 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed : Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That it fulfils the criteria of being an office suite is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for being in the article. It also has to fulfil Wikipedia:Notability, the usual test for which being: Does it have its own article? (The idea being that an article will include the citations to reliable sources necessary to fulfil Wikipedia:Verifiability). The 'eDesk Online' article, however, was deleted for lack of notibility; and correspondingly its row in this article was removed. So please do not add a row for eDesk Online until it becomes sufficiently notable to have its own, verifiable and properly sourced Wikipedia article, at which time it will be included in this article. -- simxp (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Google

Please see here [4] for some resources on including Google and tell me what you think. Thanks →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Docs & Spreadsheets

Last night, I added Google Docs & Spreadsheets to this page. This morning, I noticed that it had been there, and was removed. I find it a little odd to say that it's not a suite (it is a set of office programs, intended for use together), but then, I'm not the primary maintainer here and I don't want to override someone else's considered decision. However, if said reference is to be removed from this page, the reference to this page on the Google Docs & Spreadsheets page (which is how I got here in the first place) should be removed as well.

Thoughts?

Sorry not to sign with an account name; I'll create an account later today. --Patrick T. Ramsey 17:42, 05 December 2006

It's on the page under the section Online office suites. However, I am of the opinion that we should only add here packages which call itself a suite. Google Docs & Spreadsheets may one day become a suite, but not today. --John Seward 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. I know it's there, because I put it there. I'll remove it, but, for consistency's sake, should someone also remove the reference to this page from the page on Google Docs and Spreadsheets? The two pages ought to either refer to each other mutually, or not refer to each other at all, I would think. Also, while GD&S may not be an online office suite, it is certainly the same *sort* of thing as the other online office suites listed here. Perhaps a page should be made to list such things, whatever they may be called.
Also, it seems that the only thing that docs/spreadsheets lacks that other "suites" on this page have is a presentations module. It certainly has a word processor, spreadsheet, collaboration software, and (one could say) an email client to boot. Not sure if that makes a suite, but it the very least, might it be included under the descriptor "partial suite" (as it is now) in the future?
Regardless, I'll remove it.
Crap. Still haven't made an account. I'll get on that.
--Patrick T. Ramsey 02:24, 06 December 2006
Neither cmyOS, iWork, eDeskOnline, nor eyeOS explicitly call themselves office suites, and yet people consider them to be such(and they are included on this list). I can't even find the word "suite" anywhere on the Microsoft Office Live website, even though anybody who's heard of it will most likely call it an office suite. According to Office suite: "Most office application suites include at least a word processor and a spreadsheet element. In addition to these, the suite may contain a presentation program, database tool, graphics suite and communications tools. An office suite may also include an email client and a personal information manager or groupware package."
Google Docs & Spreadsheets certainly meets these criteria, esp. considering its integration with Gmail, and IMHO should either be included or else several other entries in this list should be removed.
qwe 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
But eDeskOnline calls itself "Your Personal Global Virtual Office" and eyeOS describes itself as "Web Desktop - Web OS - Web Office". As for iWork, I am puzzled why it is on this page as well; it neither calls itself an office, nor does it include any software application which is considered essential components of an office suite, ie the word processor and the spreadsheet. If there is no objection I'll remove it as well.
Google Docs & Spreadsheets do contain a word processor and a spreadsheet, but it's just that -- a word processor and a spreadsheet. It may be the first step towards a real office suite, but until it features tighter integration between the two than just a single sign-on, or an additional component (a wiki or a presentation tool), it can't be considered an office suite yet, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And Gmail is not part of Google Docs & Spreadsheets. --John Seward 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with inclusion, no matter what it is called, it is an office suite. Also, see this InformationWeek article (from Aug 2006) detailing the Office Suite they already sell to small/mid-size businesses. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with inclusion, no matter what it is called, it is an office suite.

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Alternatives from Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org

Both MS Office and OO.o articles have sections listing alternative suites. Are these appropriate (topical, relevant, informative) or do they stray from the main topics? Please discuss. Steven Fisher supports a merge & removed the alternatives section from MS Office. --Karnesky 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Against Merge. First and foremost: MS Office and OO.o should be treated in the same way. If there is a section of alternatives in OO.o, it should also be in MS Office. I believe that a NPOV discussion of alternatives is relevant to MS Office, so am not opposed to a short list in either article. The list should consist of major competitors & probably have more references and discussion of how they are seen as alternatives (there have been numerous articles in the popular press about alternatives to MS Office). --Karnesky 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
For Merge. I agree that MS Office and OO.o should be treated the same way, but that is a different discussion -- the current state of the OO.o article should not be used in isolation to oppose the merge. Any list of alternatives across both of these articles is by nature duplication, and is also spam- and bias-bait. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't have these lists: Coca-Cola, Linux, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel do not contain these lists. Adobe Photoshop does, but has the same problem: It's duplication of an existing article. It is unclear why office suites should be an exception to this. I believe emphasis should be placed on properly referencing List of office suites, and Comparison of office suites rather than imperfectly duplicating sections across all these articles. A discussion of major alternatives is already present in each article's lead and does not need to be duplicated and expanded on in a separate section. -- Steven Fisher 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
For Merge ^ ditto — a thing 03:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For Merge I agree with the arguments outlined above. Both OO.o and MS Office have these lists and its duplication can lead to reduced accuracy. I don't take the view that this is a case of SPAM in the article. Lists have become a topic of argument amongst wikipedians I take a more contrarian viewpoint that they are sometimes a necessary informative source. but in this case we would be better served by have a list maintained in one primary location. --Mrr1979 15:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Well, I didn't mean to sound completely anti-list. Only anti-list where it doesn't seem to be needed (like here). :) -- Steven Fisher 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
For Merge. It seems redundant to have both a list and comparison page and still paste all of these here. Oberiko 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The only specific advantage of keeping these sections in the MS Office and OO.o articles is that the information regarding the products can be tailored to those two suites. We don't take advantage of this as much as we could, but an example of this is that there is some disccusion in the MS Office article on compatibility with the MS Office file formats. This is currently missing from the comparison of office suites (though ODF support is there). I see this advantage as significant, and would like to see a little more on the standard office document formats debate and similar relevant topics enter these articles. If these sections are removed, we might still want to refer to this & should definitely add MS Office compatibility to the software comparison. --Karnesky 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For Merge. Let's remove duplication - one page can be easily linked from all listed suites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.4.197 (talk • contribs)
It has been a week, so I'll take the consensus as "for merge." Please don't revert OO.o or MS Office to the lists as they exist now. No one was explitily against lists which were more tailored to the main articles (rather than merely an overview of all office suites which is a duplication of content), but I was the only one explicitly for this. If some future person wishes to try to add similar lists back in, I suggest that they make them "targeted." --Karnesky 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I support a merge & removal of the alternatives section from MS Office. Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge list of office suites to office suite

[edit] Straw poll

[edit] Additional discussion

(title was merge our this article with another article = office suites)

I suggest as under :

merge our this article with another article = Office suite.

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

May I go ahead ? As a first step, I suggest moving all the discussion points to the article = Office suite.

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please put up mergefrom and mergeto templates to foster more conversation if you strongly believe in doing this. For what it is worth: I am against merging the articles. This list is somewhat lengthy & would make 'office suite' a weaker article. --Karnesky (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


* Reason : Wikipedia would not like become a "directory"
* We can have an external link leading to DMOZ
* We can have a section titled : Comparision of office suites
* Suggest moving all the discussion points
* Request : I do not know how to locate the template: so please help

(unindenting). I'll put up the templates for you. Note, though, that WP:LISTS can be fine, that a merge is not a pre-requisite for having a DMOZ link, that we have a separate comparison article, etc. --Karnesky (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest to merge this article with another article = Office suite. The reason is that all info relating to office suites will be in one article.
Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We should also cover in this article itself: 'Comparision of office suites
Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete past discussion points. --Karnesky (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Done to improve brevity: will not do in the future: You may revert changes Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If no objection, then may I first move all the discussion here to the talk page of office suites ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No. At this point, there is no consensus. It is usually polite to wait at least one week for discussion. Since we are talking amongst ourselves, we should probably directly solicit contributors to both articles to comment. --Karnesky (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk pages of everyone who commented on the previous merge. --Karnesky (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be against the merge personally. Although office suite is a weak article at the moment, it could be developed into something useful, at which point the list would have to be hauled out again. Being that there is already a comparison page, what is the need for the list? Oberiko (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the list should eventually be merged to the comparison page. At the moment, though, it includes programs that aren't in the comparison page. It also has a few redlinks, which hopefully encourage the creation of stubs. --Karnesky (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Karnesky: thanks for your note. What shall we make of the comments from Oberiko? He mentions what is the need for the list?. Would it count as a vote for mergeSanjiv swarup (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't wish to put words in his mouth. He specifically said that he is "against the merge" of list of office suites to office suite that you propose. The comment about the list is because there is also a comparison of office suites. --Karnesky (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel this article is redundant and in fact can be deleted after moving the missing names to the comparison page. This article also does not conform to WP:LISTS in spirit. As per WP:LISTS, a list should be used only as an index. Whereas in this article along with the list, people have added comments which makes the article seem more like an advert rather than an index. I would vote for a merge of missing items to the comparison page tables rather than the office suite page. Once the merge is through i would vote for speedy delete. I am sure, once we have a consensus, we should have volunteers to do the needful. I would be more than happy to help. Dhshah (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this meets WP:LIST & that it would survive an AfD (especially given what has happened to other software lists). The list is sorted by platform, license, and whether the product is actively maintained. It also has a short description for many items. It is true that some need to be cleaned up, but it is NOT true that this is a mere index. That said, I agree that this should be merged to the comparison. I think that we could just put up a redirect. This would have the benefit of not only keeping things findable, but also of retaining article history.
Sanjiv: what do you think of merging to the comparison page? --Karnesky (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Karnesky: Good suggestion. Will you please do it. Sanjiv swarup (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


I think this is the most sensible solution. Good suggestion! There's no reason for a comparison of and a list of. On the other hand, an Office suite article could and should become something more than a list/comparison... and if it can't, well, it should be brought up for deletion at some point. But I don't think there's any need to rush out and propose the deletion of Office suite now. --Steven Fisher (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sdfisher / Karnesky : Now that there is unanimity, please merge this article with comparison of

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Computer Works"

Oh, dear, I've never done this before. Please forgive my bumbling. I was looking for "Computer "Works" Programs", and this was the closest I could get. Could you please see to it that there are cross references to this article when somebody types "Computer Works" in the search field? FWIW, I'd like to see the list incorporated into the main article. Thank you for your forbearance. 69.129.193.131 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Richard S. Russell

[edit] Proposal : merge 'office suites' with 'Comparison of office suites '

Proposal: Merge Office suites with Comparison of office suites Suggest this tag be inserted onto the main article Office suites. Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree: The concept of an office suite is necesarily to be illustrated with a comparison of features and a list od components. If one were to compare the two arrticles, one can see similar sections (eg components ) Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree: An article about the concept of an office suite is fundamentally different from a comparison or list of office suites. The former is theoretically independent of the current software market at any one time, the other is a reflection of it. Even though the main article is admittedly a little sparse at the moment, it could and should be improved. -- simxp (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree: I think simxp is correct. The article can be and should be improved. Merge not required. Dhshah (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why not create a chart to display the foll information

Why not create a chart to display the foll information Sanjiv swarup (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Multi-platform office suites 1.1 Proprietary suites 1.2 Free suites

2 Office suites for Microsoft Windows 2.1 Proprietary suites 2.2 Free suites

3 Office suites for Mac 3.1 Proprietary suites 3.2 Free suites

4 Office suites for Unix and Unix-like operating systems 4.1 Proprietary suites 4.2 Free suites

5 Online office suites


The article already contains the sections which you mentioned. Please elaborate on your suggestion. Dhshah (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I want an additional chart to reflect the folling matter . I am referring to section = Contents which reads as ..

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1 Multi-platform office suites 1.1 Proprietary suites 1.2 Free suites 2 Office suites for Microsoft Windows 2.1 Proprietary suites 2.2 Free suites 3 Office suites for Mac 3.1 Proprietary suites 3.2 Free suites 4 Office suites for Unix and Unix-like operating systems 4.1 Proprietary suites 4.2 Free suites 5 Online office suites

[edit] Mozilla Thunderbird?

I'm not sure why Mozilla Thunderbird is listed as the email component of several suites? Sure, you could use Thunderbird, but unless it comes bundled as part of the suite, it doesn't really qualify? I see that OO.o are thinking of making a PIM based on Thunderbird, but it doesn't seem to be around yet. -- Mithent (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OOXML support and Microsoft Office

This entry in the column should be updated to partial support, as, ironically, MS Office doesn't even support it's own format fully! --86.15.128.27 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are three OOXML specs: ECMA 376, ISO Transitional, and ISO Strict. The ECMA 376 spec, which became ISO Transitional, is based on what MS Office 07 uses now, and MS Office obviously does support it; as do Wordperfect office, Novell's version of Openoffice, Apple's iWork, etc. The ISO Strict spec, on the other hand, is currently supported by no application whatsoever, and probably won't be supported by any app for a while; this is the ISO's idea of what applications should eventually use after the transition period is over, and drops support for all the compatibility baggage. So, yes, MS Office doesn't fully support "OOXML Strict", but then, neither does anything else. (The whole "MS Office doesn't support OOXML" thing seems to have originated from sites like Slashdot et al conflating the different OOXML specs). -- simxp (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)