We found that there were hundreds of open-source programs available on the Internet, so for comparison purposes we selected four programs that appeared to compete directly with fee-based software titles. In this article, we will examine open-source counterparts to Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop CS2, Adobe Audition 2.0, and Microsoft Publisher to find out if they really measure up.

OpenOffice 2.0 vs. Microsoft Office

OpenOffice, available at www .openoffice.org, is an open-source productivity suite that was designed to compete directly with Microsoft Office Professional ($499; office.microsoft.com). It includes a word processor (comparable to Word), a spreadsheet component (comparable to Excel), and a presentation suite (comparable to PowerPoint).

Downloading the 93MB Open-Office installer took a few minutes over a high-speed connection; it is significantly faster than the multi-CD installation of Microsoft Office Professional. The installer asked us if we wanted to open all office documents with OpenOffice but did not default to these options. It even included a section that explains that you probably do not want to associate Microsoft Office files with OpenOffice if you are just trying the product out.

OpenOffice Writer. The word processor in the OpenOffice suite is called Writer. At first glance, Writer looks nearly identical to Word, which makes the program easy to grasp for long-time Microsoft Word users.

Pros. The position of menu options and toolbar buttons closely resembles its Microsoft counterpart, and all toolbar buttons are clean and representative of their respective functions.

Just like Word, Writer is equipped with a real-time spell checker that underlines misspelled words and provides a right-click interface to make suggested corrections. The open-source word processor also has drawing features similar to those offered by Word.

Cons. When saving a document in Writer, OpenOffice defaults the document type to an OpenDocument Text file format (with an .ODT extension). These files will not open directly in Word, so if you plan to share documents with others who do not have OpenOffice installed, you will need to select the Save As option from the File menu and choose a Microsoft Word format from the drop-down list.

Writer does not have the grammar-checking options that come standard with Word. Students using Writer in an academic environment may lose a few more grammar points on their homework than their Microsoft-using friends.

OpenOffice Calc. The spreadsheet component in the OpenOffice suite is called Calc, which is closely styled after Microsoft’s Excel.

Pros. Calc recognizes almost all Microsoft Excel formulas, making it a viable alternative for the casual or small-business spreadsheet user who needs to plan an event or do some light accounting work.

If you print to PDF (Portable Document Format) frequently, you will find Calc’s direct support for PDF printing handy. The File menu contains a simple Print To PDF command that allows you to create PDF documents without the need for Adobe Acrobat Professional or other related products.

Cons. If you email spreadsheets back and forth regularly to others, you may find it a little annoying that you cannot open a read-only spreadsheet without saving it first. If someone sends you a Calc spreadsheet as an attachment, you must first save it to another location (for example, your Desktop) and then open it from there.

Also, advanced Excel users may become frustrated with Calc’s lack of support for some advanced spreadsheet commands and functions. For instance, if you are using Excel as a replacement for Intuit’s QuickBooks (quickbooks.intuit.com) in your business, Calc may not be for you.

OpenOffice Impress. OpenOffice’s answer to Microsoft’s PowerPoint is called Impress. When you open Impress for the first time, you are greeted with a clean wizard interface to help you start your presentation or open an existing presentation.

Pros. Impress allows you to open presentations created in Microsoft PowerPoint, make changes to the presentation, and then resave it again. This is a handy feature for the cash-strapped student who needs to view a professor’s classroom notes or create a presentation but can’t afford PowerPoint.

Cons. While Impress is great for opening and modifying existing presentations, it proved itself to be the least stable component of the Open-Office suite in our tests. Each time we attempted to create a new presentation and add a background effect using the handy wizard, Impress crashed completely. We made two identical attempts and ended with the same results.

In addition, PowerPoint users who are used to a wide variety of background selections for presentation slides will be disappointed with the meager choice of two default backgrounds that come with Impress.

Conclusions. OpenOffice 2.0 is a viable alternative for the budget-conscious user who is familiar with Microsoft Office. Recent updates included with version 2.0 make the suite feel comfortable to the Micro-soft Office user. Unless you are a high-octane Microsoft Excel or PowerPoint user, OpenOffice can save you nearly $500.

Gimpshop vs. Adobe Photoshop CS2

Over the past 10 years, Adobe Photoshop ($649; www.adobe.com/products/photoshop) has been considered the Holy Grail of photographic manipulation software by professionals and amateurs alike. While there are many low-cost alternatives to Photoshop, few offer the brushes, features, and capabilities that Photoshop lovers have come to rely on.

With that said, open-source developers are hot on Adobe’s heels with the latest version of Gimpshop (www .plasticbugs.com). Gimpshop is the latest variant of the GIMP open-source image manipulation program. Gimpshop puts a Photoshop-like interface on the old GIMP applica-tion to help Photoshop users feel more comfortable using the open-source program.

Pros. The download and installation sequence for Gimpshop was pretty straightforward and fast--less than two minutes from download to use. We found it fairly simple to open a picture, make basic photographic changes to its elements, resize it, and save it again.

Cons. Gimpshop’s toolbars and buttons are similarly oriented to those in Photoshop, but the buttons’ appearance does differ significantly from those in Photoshop. For example, it took us a minute or two to find the Crop button because it looks like a knife in Gimpshop. Needless to say, there is a slight learning curve to Gimpshop, even for those familiar with graphic-editing software.

Another major difference that will throw long-time Photoshop users a curveball is the double menu structure. Clicking the File command in the top-left corner only reveals an Exit option. The usual Open, Save, and Save As functions are located in a second-tier File menu.

Conclusions. Gimpshop is a good alternative for the casual home photographer, but it may not satisfy the demands of the professional or aspiring photographer. If you are simply trying your hand at the craft, we would recommend giving Gimpshop a chance. It will save you the $650 you’d spend for Photoshop CS2 until you know you need (and are ready for) the horsepower.

Scribus vs. Microsoft Publisher

The desire to create and print homemade banners, greeting cards, signs, newsletters, and brochures dates back to the days of the Apple IIe computer. Desktop publishing software has come a long way since then, and one of the industry leaders is Microsoft Publisher ($169; office.microsoft.com/publisher).

Until recently, there was not an open-source alternative to Microsoft Publisher. Scribus (www.scribus.net) is a little-known newcomer on the open-source scene that offers Publisher-like desktop and template publishing.

However, the installation instructions for Scribus were as complicated as assembling a bicycle on Christmas night. The software is still in beta mode (meaning it’s still being tested and not yet permanent), and there are different installation instructions based on different versions of Windows. We had to install a secondary piece of open-source software to ensure Scribus would be able to print properly. There were also warnings about problems with custom fonts and a promise that code improvements are being made daily.

Pros. We were immediately impressed with the sleek look of the loading screen as the program made an initial cache of our fonts and prepared to run. Once it loaded completely, we were greeted by a thorough wizard to assist us in developing a new publication.

It was also very handy to have a single button on the toolbar that allowed us to save our publication as a PDF file without the need for any additional third-party software.

We also got a kick out of playing with the calendar script that allowed us to create a single month or multimonth calendar with custom layouts. This would be a very handy tool for the amateur photographer who wishes to make a custom calendar at home using personal photos.

Cons. We cannot stress enough what a hurdle it was to get Scribus installed. Although the instructions were thorough and accurate, they need to be followed precisely in order for the program to install.

Another drawback is the severe shortage of templates to select from. There were only five templates available as compared to the hundreds of templates available in Publisher 2003. While some may prefer to create their own publication from scratch, sometimes having an example to work from can be helpful.

We mentioned that we liked the calendar creation script that comes with the Scribus package; however, placing an image on the top fold of the calendar might be a challenge for the novice user. Unlike Publisher, photos and images cannot be easily adjusted by clicking a corner and dragging the frame to the desired size. In Scribus, images must be sized before they are imported. Also, it is interesting to note that while Scribus supports GIMP for editing photos on the fly, it does not support Gimpshop.

Conclusions. While Scribus has potential, it is not ready for prime time yet. The installation difficulty coupled with a lack of templates makes Scribus a challenge to use effectively. In this case, we recommend using the fee-based software, Microsoft Publisher.

Audacity vs. Adobe Audition 2.0

While Windows XP comes with Windows Movie Maker for basic movie editing, users who want to mix or edit their audio files need third-party software to do so.

Adobe purchased Cool Edit Pro 2.0 from Syntrillion Software and renamed it Adobe Audition ($349; www.adobe.com/products/audition). We were very interested to see if there was any open-source software that could come close to matching this long-time audio powerhouse.

The only real contender in the open-source community that we could find is a program called Audacity (audacity.sourceforge.net). The program installed smoothly and launched in about the same amount of time as Adobe Audition.

Pros. Audacity allows multitrack recording from multiple input sources and is jam-packed with effects such as cross fading, noise reduction, and echo. Importing existing audio from MP3 format was very easy, and the audio quality of playback was superb.

Like Audition’s wave editing feature, Audacity allows you to zoom in on a particular snippet of audio within a track for up-close editing. A simple zoom out command returns the user to the original track view. Once the audio is perfectly polished, it can be saved in MP3, WAV, or the program’s proprietary AUP file format.

Cons. Audacity requires the user to select Add A New Track from the Project menu each time the project demands an additional track. By comparison, Adobe Audition has a large number of empty tracks that are open by default, saving the user a few mouse clicks here and there. There is no keyboard shortcut to add a new track in Audacity, and to the audio professional, it will seem unnecessarily laborious to require two mouse clicks to add a new track.

Conclusions. We were very impressed with the simplicity and intuitive operation Audacity offered. In many ways, it was easier to use than Adobe Audition.

We would feel extremely comfortable recommending Audacity, as it will probably meet your audio recording, mixing, and production needs while saving the $349 you would have spent on Adobe Audition. Even advanced recording buffs should find Audacity an asset in any home recording studio.

While this article focuses on the savings offered by open-source software, many computer users have saved considerable amounts of money by selecting free versions of commercial applications. Applications such as the ZoneAlarm free firewall (www.zonelabs.com) or Lavasoft’s spyware removal utility, Ad-Aware SE Personal (www.lavasoft.com), offer alternatives to open-source software for the price-conscious consumer and should be investigated, as well.

Spare Your Wallet

There are literally hundreds of free or inexpensive programs available on the Internet covering just about any purpose you can imagine. While many still have some room for improvement, our review found that, in many cases, these applications are viable enough to save a user hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in unnecessary software purchases.

Before you make your next high-dollar software purchase, you might want to do a quick search for an open-source or other freeware alternative. Your wallet will thank you.

by Thor Schrock