On 10/22/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 10:51 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: > > You're compairing 5 years worth of versions > > of an office suite, on multiple operating systems to one, 2-year-old, > > one OS version of another. Try comparing Office 2000, XP, 2001, 2003, > > and 2004 to OOo. (2001 and 2004 are on Mac.) > > > > What you suggest is not a fair compairson. The comparison I suggest > > would be far more accurate. > > Sigh. Its impossible to reason with you Chad. The purpose of the > comparison is what matters. As I keep saying and you keep failing to > grasp, rates of take up are what is important for the future not the > legacy installation of the past. Ask Daniel for a maths lesson, I'm > obviously not the teacher I used to be, he might be able to do better. > Ask MS if they care if someone is still using Office 97. They only > really care about the people buying new product and their only goal with > legacy users is to get them to buy an upgrade. That's the business > bottom line. OOo doesn't have that constraint. We don't have to make > new sales to stay in business, we even make it easy for people who want > to stick with OOo 1.x. But broadly the number of OOo users world wide, > according to the independent (some would say in MS's pocket) researchers > is similar to the number of OOo2003 users. That is significant because > if that is the situation at the launch of MSO12 and OOo continues to > grow at current rates it could well be that MSO12 never gets more users > than OOo - all the OOo users can upgrade for free so the siginificant > comparison is them and the customers actually buying or about to buy > MSOffice12, not all the Office 97, 2000, XP, 2003 users who are not > thinking of upgrades any time soon. That really would be a tipping > point.
I will leave your way-off-base rant intact to show you how wrong you are. I'm not talking about comparing OOo All.All to MSO All.All - I'm talking about comparing the number of people who have installed MSO in the last 5 years to the number of people who have installed OOo in the last 5 years. By limiting it to MSO 2003 to OpenOffice.org All.All, you are rigging the system. OpenOffice.org has had 5 years to gain an install base. MSO 2003 has only had 2. OOo is available on a ton of OSes - MSO 2003 is only available on one. To compare all 5 years of OOo to MSO, you'd have to include all the new installs and/or upgrades that MSO has released in the last 5 years. Those include MSO 2000, MSO XP, MSO 2001 (for Mac), MSO v.X (for Mac), MSO 2003, and MSO 2004 (for Mac). In my orginal post, I did not mention 97 or 98 or 95. I just mentioned the ones that were new since the release of OOo. Add those versions and platforms together, and the number will far exceed the numbers of OOo. If you want to compare OOo to MSO 2003, you should limit it to the versions released since 2003 - and/or the number of installs since 2003. And you should limit it to those installs on the Windows platform, (since that's the only place MSO 2003 will work). If you want to not count the number of installs of MSO 2003 on Linux-CrossOver Office, to make it more accurate, plesae feel free. I understand what you are trying to do, you're trying to make OOo look good. But you are doing so in a dishonest way. -Chad Smith
