Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: What Will Be Talked About At The Ubuntu 11.04 Summit

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaestroMaus View Post
    I don't know what you consider to be "moderate hardware" but a SSD surely is not in my book. As for being slow on start up: Open Office requires three times the time it takes MS Office 2010 to start up in whine on my net-book. I'd say that's pretty bad.


    I haven't found one yet in 2010 and I have been using that since release. We have found a couple of them in OO and that was only in one week. Sure, MS Office has bugs but they aren't getting in my way. The ones in OO are. Crashing or hanging or layout that won't change anymore is something that should really be looked into. It is not something minor.

    As for the ribbon interface; it works great but it was not what I was aiming at. MS Office 2003 is also more intuitive then OO. Things just aren't always logical in the OO menu's to me. And yes, it is a matter of taste. But it was a general consensus over here so I guess that counts for something.


    Are you going to be all hostile now because I was not telling something nice about Openoffice?
    I'm pretty sure I can live with that, and spare you any "hostility".
    It's just that your observations don't match with mine. The "moderate hardware" is a two-year old desktop with bog-standard hd. As I said: It's around two to three seconds (I just re-checked it: The very first start takes around 4 to 5 seconds, subsequent starts around two seconds). I don't have Office 2010 available, but a 2007 edition on Win 7 and identical hardware is definitely not noticably faster. (Working frequently with Zend Studio/Eclipse anything under 10 seconds is negligible.) Even on my backup PC (5 yrs old) I haven't noticed any slow startups of OO.

    Since you are running MSOffice 2010 under Wine: why are you complaining about the "lack of good software" - after all you do have a choice.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bash View Post
    OpenOffice and Pitivi ok, but that exactly is "MS counterpart" for GIMP?
    Photoshop. People don't compare GiMP on Linux to GiMP on Windows, and Photoshop under Wine to Photoshop on Windows - they compare GiMP on Linux to Photoshop on Windows.

    Why? Because Windows users like to compare $500+ software to free software and act like the few bugs and missing features make the other software worth the cost.

    Are the for-pay versions better overall? Probably. Are they $500 better? Probably not, at least for the use of the average user.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3vi1 View Post
    Photoshop. People don't compare GiMP on Linux to GiMP on Windows, and Photoshop under Wine to Photoshop on Windows - they compare GiMP on Linux to Photoshop on Windows.

    Why? Because Windows users like to compare $500+ software to free software and act like the few bugs and missing features make the other software worth the cost.

    Are the for-pay versions better overall? Probably. Are they $500 better? Probably not, at least for the use of the average user.
    But most of these people haven't paid $500 for the "superior" software. It "came for free on a friend's CD".

    Beats me, when people point out the virtues of Maya, when compared to Blender...

    Without illegal copies the market share of Windows and its applications would be a lot lower.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3vi1 View Post
    Photoshop. People don't compare GiMP on Linux to GiMP on Windows, and Photoshop under Wine to Photoshop on Windows - they compare GiMP on Linux to Photoshop on Windows.

    Why? Because Windows users like to compare $500+ software to free software and act like the few bugs and missing features make the other software worth the cost.

    Are the for-pay versions better overall? Probably. Are they $500 better? Probably not, at least for the use of the average user.
    People who find Gimp inferior to Photoshop are guys who usually use Photoshop just to resize pictures and knows less than 1/1000000 of Photoshop. There is no way someone who is not Professional or serious hobbyist to consider Gimp as an inferior product.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,119

    Default

    I'm not saying that Gimp is superior to Photoshop ofcourse, but still both programs are rather complicated even for the above average user.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    People who find Gimp inferior to Photoshop are guys who usually use Photoshop just to resize pictures and knows less than 1/1000000 of Photoshop. There is no way someone who is not Professional or serious hobbyist to consider Gimp as an inferior product.
    Does it have a higher-than-8bpp pipeline yet? As long as it doesn't, Photoshop remains ahead for professional usage. Gimp is a great program on its own right, I use it and love it, but it's not in the same ballpark as Photoshop (yet).

    That said, Windows doesn't ship with anything equivalent to Gimp out of the box (MSPaint, lol) and Gimp blows pretty much every other free program out of the water in functionality.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,119

    Default

    Before posting vlakeies Blackstar, read carefully my posts.
    I said nothing different.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    I'm not saying that Gimp is superior to Photoshop ofcourse, but still both programs are rather complicated even for the above average user.
    The real problem with Gimp is the appalling interface with windows all over the screen and everything hidden in seemingly random places in menus; I've been using it intermittently for years, but I can still rarely find the option I'm looking for.

    As for OpenOffice, I generally start it once and then it's running for weeks until I have to reboot the machine for some reason; so a few seconds extra startup time is pretty much irrelevant.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaestroMaus View Post
    Very slow on start-up, has bugs (some of them years old), it crashes sometimes and it isn't very intuitive.
    First post here at phoronix, so be gentile Why does open office come default checked for using java? Is there some advantage?
    (I just checked the difference on my machine and it took about 1 second to load with out java, then I turned it on and it took 6 seconds to load.)

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    I think Rhythmbox is one of the weakest points of Ubuntu. It has unusual, messed up playlist. I don't know any better GIMP or OOo equivalent on Linux.
    It seems to be okay if you accept your songs being sorted by metadata. It is designed and basically forces you to scan your media library and play things based on artist or album. As long as you do that, it's not too bad.

    However, Amarok (at least the old ones, hated the 2.x series though) had the option to do either. You could have your playlist formed by dragging and dropping files or opening playlist files etc, or you could play by searching your media library. However, I ended up just ignoring the library feature and using traditional playlists to keep my habit going, but I think meta-information is the future, and you shouldn't have to organize things by directory/folder anymore as that is no where as good as using tags and other meta-data. The former only allows organization by one aspect, the latter by multiple aspects, unless you created multiple directories using symbolic links as, say, cdimages.ubuntu.com and many other FTP sites do with their FTP structure. However, normal users don't do that.

    By the way, Clementine seems to be the successor to Amarok 1.4, forked due to users like me not liking 2.x's layout.

    Honestly though, an entire fork just because the layout is slightly different is just silly. Why Amarok 2.x didn't get an option to change the layout back to the 1.x style is beyond me, or better yet just the ability to move and close window sections to make it that way.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •