Which version of LO is the latest and/or most bug free that will run on the Powerbook G4?
Apparently, this one :
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/?type=mac-ppc&lang=en-US&version=3.5.5
However, the term "bug free" is too relative to be of any meaning where
something like LO is concerned - it might well be that this version
satisfies you completely, and then again, depending on what you are
doing with it, you might feel it is completely worthless.
Personally, I currently have 3 versions on my MB Pro (now running Lion,
but previously with SL) :
- LO 3.3.4 : IMO pretty stable, and reliable, for my usage, but contains
known unpatched security holes ;
- LO 3.5.5 : hmmm, I still have issues with this, particularly with
moving/disappearing images in ODT files, and some fairly painful
database problems (but to be fair, some were already in 3.3.4) ;
- LO home build from master branch (currently tagged as 3.7 alpha)
I use the dev build for testing files and bugs that I've encountered in
previous versions.
I use 3.3.4 for mostly everything, but 3.5.x is gaining in usage as bugs
get ironed out.
Alex
Ken Springer wrote:
Which version of LO is the latest and/or most bug free that will run on
the Powerbook G4?
LO 3.5.5 seems to be as bug free as any of them.
Start with this web page: http://www.libreoffice.org/download/
If it does not recognize you have a Powerbook G4, click on "Change System, Version or Language. Then select PowerPC. Then select your language. Then select 3.5.5 (which is recommended). Finally, click the green Main installer box.
--Dan
Hi
Usually the most stable version is the latest one in a branch that has had time to mature. So a fresh new 3.x.5 is usually more stable than an old 3.x.3 which is usually a lot more stable than a 3.x.0. The 3.x.4+ are usually very stable. Also a 3.x.4+ is usually far more stable or at least more predictable than a 3.(x+1).0
The trade-off is that tons of new features and far greater compatibility with MS formats tends to be added with an 3.(x+1).0 so you (errr, and me) miss out on all that by aiming for stability.
Ok, generalities don't always work but it gives a rough idea of what to expect, i think, and getting away from the general confusion helps a lot.
Regards from
Tom
I know that there are big issues fixed in the 3.4 line that the 3.3 line had, and the same with the 3.5 line. The 3.6 line will come out in a few months, while the 3.5 line will go to either 3.5.6 or 3.5.7.
I would try 3.5.5 for your MacOSX -PPC system. It may surprise you on how well it works. I do not have a Mac, but I use it for several Windows systems and for my main systems that are Ubuntu based systems.
For my preference, I do not switch over to the new line till it goes to .3 or .4. I will stick with 3.5.x till 3.6 goes to one of those later version. The only .0 version I used was when LO came out with 3.3.0. I have not used OOo since then. I stopped using MSO as soon as OOo worked well with .doc files, with the last MSO being 2003.
Let us know how it works out for you. We are looking for more Mac users, as well as Windows ones. LO being the default Office package for most Linux distros tends to help with that market.
Now we need to build up the numbers in the Windows and Mac office market. LO does have the advantage of more [so I have heard] language support than MSO does, and you do not need to buy a new version to get these 100+ supported languages for the menu and help systems.
Bear in mind that there are 2 comparative "open source" competitors on Mac apart from LO :
- AOOo, the follow on from the legacy OpenOffice.org, with some functionality missing (compared to LO), due to licensing issues preventing that functionality from being included in the binary release;
- NeoOffice : a stable, longstanding and Mac environment integrated product, yes, behind a bit in version functionality, compared to LO, but nonetheless representative of a more Mac-like experience.
LO still has a looooong way to go when it comes to Mac OS integration, and that is without even considering the numerous accessibility problems that LO causes - quite simply, it is unusable for anyone with a disability that relies on the accessibility functions provided by Mac OSX.
These issues represent major obstacles for users on Mac OSX against the adoption of LO. It doesn't look like a Mac app, and it doesn't behave like one either. We still Mac users, of course, but their one and only initial experience is often fatal to the reputation of our product on that OS.
What the project desperately needs are programmers who can code to Apple's "do as I say or else" coding standards. This is particularly true of the user interface, which is fairly far from Apple's HMI guidelines.
Alex
<snip>
I would try 3.5.5 for your MacOSX -PPC system. It may surprise you on
how well it works. I do not have a Mac, but I use it for several
Windows systems and for my main systems that are Ubuntu based systems.
The laptop isn't for me. It was given to me at my last Mac User Group meeting, and has OS X Leopard installed. I'll be donating it to a local social agency to be given away to someone who needs a computer but can't afford it.
Apple doesn't include things similar to Wordpad and the like with their OS.
So I'm collecting some software that can be installed by the new owner. I would install it if this was a Windows machine, but OS X requires the new owner to create the equivalent of an Administrator account with name and password right out of the box. The Leopard install is brand new, so there's no way I can install the software as I don't know what the eventual username and password will be.
Technically, that name and password can be changed at a later date, but apparently that is something that often causes problems in OS X, so I'm going to avoid it.
<snip>
Let us know how it works out for you. We are looking for more Mac
users, as well as Windows ones. LO being the default Office package for
most Linux distros tends to help with that market.
If I should get any feedback from the eventual owners, I'll post it. But, don't hold your breath. LOL
Now we need to build up the numbers in the Windows and Mac office
market. LO does have the advantage of more [so I have heard] language
support than MSO does, and you do not need to buy a new version to get
these 100+ supported languages for the menu and help systems.
I think my time with LO is about to expire. I've filed two bugs which no one seems interested in even dealing with. They still exist. And there are others that I've not double checked on for 3.5.x. I've posted about this "non-attentiveness" before, but if fixing the bugs that are important to me isn't important to the developers, I'm not interested in lending any assistance. It's a two way street, and I'm not the only one to post about bugs not being fixed prior to adding new features. I'll find a program that doesn't cause me problems. I already know which program I'll check out first, but will wait until the newest version is out this fall.
And is won't be MSO. <grin> If Corel hadn't dropped Mac support with WordPerfect, I'd fork over the money for it. I used to use it, thought it was far superior to MSO.
I have Apple's iWork 09 package, which I consider to be Apple's equivalent to MS Works. But, there's no database component. I may go back and work some more with Pages (the word processor) and see if I can get used to it.
Now we need to build up the numbers in the Windows and Mac office
market. LO does have the advantage of more [so I have heard] language
support than MSO does, and you do not need to buy a new version to get
these 100+ supported languages for the menu and help systems.Bear in mind that there are 2 comparative "open source" competitors on
Mac apart from LO :- AOOo, the follow on from the legacy OpenOffice.org, with some
functionality missing (compared to LO), due to licensing issues
preventing that functionality from being included in the binary release;
Played with it briefly in Windows years ago, but kind of waiting for the Apache dust to settle before considering it.
- NeoOffice : a stable, longstanding and Mac environment integrated
product, yes, behind a bit in version functionality, compared to LO, but
nonetheless representative of a more Mac-like experience.
This was the first office package I checked out after deciding I wasn't particularly happy with Pages, but when I found out I had to pay to post problems and bugs in the Neo forums, that was it for me. I'm not sure Neo is even supporting any new versions for PPC any more.
Don't forget the current Lotus Symphony, it's based on Open Office now.
LO still has a looooong way to go when it comes to Mac OS integration,
and that is without even considering the numerous accessibility problems
that LO causes - quite simply, it is unusable for anyone with a
disability that relies on the accessibility functions provided by Mac OSX.
I've been a computer user since the 8-bit days, and I would have stopped with "LO still has a looooong way to go".
These issues represent major obstacles for users on Mac OSX against the
adoption of LO. It doesn't look like a Mac app, and it doesn't behave
like one either. We still Mac users, of course, but their one and only
initial experience is often fatal to the reputation of our product on
that OS.
The non-Mac interface really doesn't bother me too much, having gone from Atari 8-bit to the ST/TT line, Win 98 then XP, and now OS X. But that consistency in user interface is what makes Macs much easier for some people to learn. Apple terminology really threw me at first, took me 2 weeks to finally figure out that "Airport" meant wireless. But a friend who could never fathom Windows knew right away what it meant. LOL
Apple doesn't include things similar to Wordpad and the like with their OS.
It does come with TextEdit, a RTF "capable" editor/word processor, although I would use that last term lightly.
So I'm collecting some software that can be installed by the new owner.
I would install it if this was a Windows machine, but OS X requires
the new owner to create the equivalent of an Administrator account with
name and password right out of the box. The Leopard install is brand
new, so there's no way I can install the software as I don't know what
the eventual username and password will be.
You can actually create several users with admin rights (or at least you could, perhaps that has changed ??), then just delete the one that you don't want to keep, that way you could install the software you want.
I think my time with LO is about to expire. I've filed two bugs which
no one seems interested in even dealing with. They still exist. And
there are others that I've not double checked on for 3.5.x. I've posted
about this "non-attentiveness" before, but if fixing the bugs that are
important to me isn't important to the developers, I'm not interested in
lending any assistance. It's a two way street, and I'm not the only one
to post about bugs not being fixed prior to adding new features. I'll
Such is the way with open source, community run projects, especially if your reports are OS specific. The plain fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the developers of this project are actually coding on Linux. As far as I know, there are 3 or 4 developers who regularly use Mac OSX, but that's about it. There are no specialist Mac user interface coders, nor anyone particularly specialised in the underlying Mac APIs.
Feature development is what makes life interesting for developers on a project like this - bug fixing for them is generally not so much fun, hence the prioritisation. I can understand your point of view though, having looked at alternatives and remained as yet undecided. I'm ultimately not prepared to fork out for something that doesn't cater to my needs, so I can stick with LO, and try and help it improve in my own small way.
I have Apple's iWork 09 package, which I consider to be Apple's
equivalent to MS Works. But, there's no database component. I may go
back and work some more with Pages (the word processor) and see if I can
get used to it.
Not tried that, or Pages/Sheets/etc, and when I looked at database implementations, only found FMPro, which is well out of what my purse strings are prepared to pay, even for a small business like mine.
Alex
Apple doesn't include things similar to Wordpad and the like with their OS.
It does come with TextEdit, a RTF "capable" editor/word processor,
although I would use that last term lightly.
It's basically a fancy Notepad. I don't care for it that much.
So I'm collecting some software that can be installed by the new owner.
I would install it if this was a Windows machine, but OS X requires
the new owner to create the equivalent of an Administrator account with
name and password right out of the box. The Leopard install is brand
new, so there's no way I can install the software as I don't know what
the eventual username and password will be.You can actually create several users with admin rights (or at least you
could, perhaps that has changed ??), then just delete the one that you
don't want to keep, that way you could install the software you want.
Nothing has changed, but the admin account you create at the first bootup is somewhat analogous to the Administrator account that shows up in Safe Mode in Windows.
It's this very first account creation you don't want to mess with if the folks at my Mac User Group are accurate. That user name and password needs to be set by the new owner, and until you create a username and password, you go no further.
I think my time with LO is about to expire. I've filed two bugs which
no one seems interested in even dealing with. They still exist. And
there are others that I've not double checked on for 3.5.x. I've posted
about this "non-attentiveness" before, but if fixing the bugs that are
important to me isn't important to the developers, I'm not interested in
lending any assistance. It's a two way street, and I'm not the only one
to post about bugs not being fixed prior to adding new features. I'llSuch is the way with open source, community run projects, especially if
your reports are OS specific. The plain fact of the matter is that the
vast majority of the developers of this project are actually coding on
Linux. As far as I know, there are 3 or 4 developers who regularly use
Mac OSX, but that's about it. There are no specialist Mac user interface
coders, nor anyone particularly specialised in the underlying Mac APIs.
AFAIK, my reports would apply to all versions, as neither would be Mac interface related/specific.
Feature development is what makes life interesting for developers on a
project like this - bug fixing for them is generally not so much fun,
hence the prioritisation. I can understand your point of view though,
having looked at alternatives and remained as yet undecided. I'm
ultimately not prepared to fork out for something that doesn't cater to
my needs, so I can stick with LO, and try and help it improve in my own
small way.
Sometime back, Webmaster for Kracked Press posted the question, is LO ready for the real world, or words to that effect. My response may have been the only "no". And for the reasons of low priority on bug fixes. The attitude/perspective of the developers needs to be more professional, otherwise, LO is just a very good group of hobbyists. If they want to be considered a truly viable alternative to MSO, the needs of the users need to come before the desires/wants of the developers. The users need to be #1.
I have Apple's iWork 09 package, which I consider to be Apple's
equivalent to MS Works. But, there's no database component. I may go
back and work some more with Pages (the word processor) and see if I can
get used to it.Not tried that, or Pages/Sheets/etc, and when I looked at database
implementations, only found FMPro, which is well out of what my purse
strings are prepared to pay, even for a small business like mine.
Pages is the word processing portion of iWork, Numbers is the spreadsheet. I'm guessing you mean a spreadsheet with the Sheets comment above.
I haven't done a lot of research for OS X databases, but FileMaker has a low end database called Bento. I think that used to be a vendor that FM bought out.
I don't know if Appleworks will still run under OS X, or if you need an older version of OS X that included the Classic OS 9 interface.
The program I was talking about is Papyrus, http://rom-logicware.com/. They had the best office package for the Atari ST/TT computers. When I bought my Win 98 machine, they were just in the beginning processes of porting to Windows, and I actually did some beta testing of the doc files at the time. They also had an OS/2 version too.
But I never have tried their way of doing a database, but I suspect it's closely tied to using the spreadsheet.
They are currently translating from German in to English of the newest version for the Mac, and should be done "at the end of harvest", which I take to mean this fall.