Talk:Lotus Symphony (MS-DOS)

BBC Master 512k

I don't recall if it was Lotus, but I'm 100% sure that there was a Symphony spreadsheet application for the BBC Master 512k (and probably lesser, and possible Electrons). My dad used it all the time before migrating to the DOS version. I'm fairly sure it pre-dates any DOS version and am surprised it's not mentioned.. unless it wasn't Lotus Symphony.

Database power

I was told by a database professional that Symphony's database environment is exceptionally powerful. Its "macro command language" is also quite powerful, allowing bytes to be read from any file, processed, and output to any file. Also, it takes advantage of Symphony's menu-handling routines, allowing the command language writer to create menu systems of any depth. Symphony is actually an integrated suite of five environments: SHEET (spreadsheet), FORM (database), DOC (word processing), COM (modem-based communications), and GRAPH (simple business-oriented graphs, including bar charts, pie charts, X-Y plots, and so on). The version I have is 2.2, of which the COM environment is useless (as of 2007), and though the GRAPH environment uses CGA graphics, it's still usable under Windows XP. Years ago, a Toshiba customer support representative told me that Symphony caused some problems because instead of using standard DOS procedures, it sometimes used direct BIOS calls, but Windows XP seems to support it well. D021317c 06:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether this statement is true: "Symphony's FORM environment was weak, lacking ... the pseudo relational power of dBase III." I have Symphony 2.2 on hand, and would like to discuss the issue with people who have dBase III. D021317c 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Symphony

It seems to me that Symphony was severely hampered by the hardware available at the time of its appearance. It required a rather complicated setup procedure which loaded drivers for all sorts of equipment, including printers, modems, monitors, math coprocessors, etc. The article ought to mention these problems, which were common to all sophisticated programs of the early 1990s, that is, programs which integrated graphics, text, printing, communications, and serious math operations.

It must have been a major headache creating and supplying those drivers, and the lack of modern ones is Symphony's main problem today.

A single paragraph including links to the issues would do nicely. D021317c 17:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

relaunch of the name with new code from Notes8/OpenOffice.org

it seems that IBM are launching a desktop office suite and reusing the Symphony name. The new product will have a word processor, spreadsheet and presentation tool. Essentially this consists of OpenOffice.org code presented through an Eclipse framework, with some new user interface components. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.69.162 (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't seem to find any docs on where the source is? Is it closed? I thought IBM was gonna be a nice corporate overlord and give us some source :) --99.224.57.193 22:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The license on the download right now is a very odd document. It is basically a huge and complex warranty disclaimer. Under the hood it is the Eclipse framework (Eclipse Public License) plus OpenOffice.org 1.1.0 (SISSL - i.e. a pre LGPL only fork) The next version (or perhaps next +1) will take a new cut of OpenOffice.org so will have to comply with the LGPL. Right now they don't need to meet LGPL obligations.62.173.69.162 09:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Alan Bell

Should recent IBM Symphony be forked

They older dos version and the recent version have little to do with each other, unless the old source code had been released as open, the entire code base for the two will be entirely different. At best a brief mention of the dos version should be mentioned along with the current version. WikipedianYknOK 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly agree. The DOS version should be moved to a page entitled "Lotus Symphony for DOS", or similar. The present article is confusing and largely irrelevant to the current product of that name.--Rfsmit (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have finished this move, and have redirected all links to Lotus Symphony to either the IBM Lotus Symphony or Lotus Symphony for DOS articles Tuxcantfly (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I only just heard about the new version. Is it based on the old Lotus Smart Suite, which has not been actively developed for a while? I would hope this to be the case, as Word Pro was the most elegant Word Processor I have ever used. I would have deary loved it ported to Linux...

On the other hand, is it related to OpenOffice.org, given it is using the OASIS file format?

Can some one please provide me with some information about the development history of this? Is it open source software, for instance, or proprietary IBM code? The IBM site did not give much information in its FAQs. Thanks. 210.50.60.30 23:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it based on the old Lotus Smart Suite? - no which has not been actively developed for a while? - they do have a dev team in India still working on SmartSuite. is it related to OpenOffice.org? - yes. based on OOo 1.1.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.69.162 (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I wish they'd just open source Lotus Smart Suite and be done with it though.  :-( Word Pro is the only Windows application I really miss on Linux. 210.50.56.48 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Proprietary license?

How is it proprietary? Shouldn't it be under the LGPL like OpenOffice? Perhaps this is due to not understanding the LGPL, but I thought that, even though it's weaker than the GPL, it still meant that most of the code in Lotus Symphony falls under it. SteveSims 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont know. Maybe its not based on openoffice at all, but its father, starffice, which is owned by Sun

It is based on an earlier version of OpenOffice.org which was dual licensed under both the LGPL as well as Sun's own SISSL which allowed for entities change the code without releasing their changes. IBM is using the SISSL version and as such they don't have to open up the source code for their Lotus Symphony.

This info should probably be included on the main page. Jccalhoun (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The page as it's written doesn't make sense to me. If they used the SISSL license in order to not release the code, then why are they incorporating OpenOffice.org 2.0 code, which would require them to release the code? Please clarify. -kslays (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that OpenOffice.org is LGPL 3.0 I think the source doesn't have to be released? How does this change things? -kslays (talk, contribs) 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Link

The links dead. Ive deleted it therefore. IBM seem to have removed most pages google turns up bout symphony from thier site??

Blog comment as reference?

I know Lotus Symphony is a work-in-progress product and there is not much published about it in notable sources, and I appreciate any info that someone has managed to collect here (that is why I came to this article), but still seeing a blog comment (even if by the original poster) referenced in an encyclopedia is surprising. --Cyhawk (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Auto text

Is there any reason why Lotus does not feature an auto text tool?

All other wordprocessor, Word Starwirter and Wordperfect, have it.--78.48.19.199 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Move current page to Lotus Symphony (DOS), and redirect to IBM Lotus Symphony

I would reckon that essentially every user searching for "Lotus Symphony" would expect to see the current, IBM office suite, not the discontinued software from the 80s this article refers to. Yet "Lotus Symphony" currently redirects here, not to the more relevant IBM office suite. Hence this current page should be moved to Lotus Symphony (DOS) or Lotus Symphony (1980s), and the current page should redirect to IBM Lotus Symphony (which already has "For the 1980s DOS software, see Lotus Symphony" for those who are indeed looking for this page) Tuxcantfly (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have finished this move, and have redirected all links to Lotus Symphony to either the IBM Lotus Symphony or Lotus Symphony for DOS articles Tuxcantfly (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested only in the product from the 80s, and am disappointed that there isn't more information about it and that there are no links to websites from which it can be downloaded. Unfree (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Lotus Symphony for DOS → Lotus Symphony (DOS) — This was never called "Lotus Symphony for DOS", that's WP:OR. This product was called "Lotus Symphony", the Windows version was called "Lotus Symphony for Windows", the new product is called "IBM Lotus Symphony". 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Lotus Symphony for Windows

We're missing an article for Lotus Symphony for Windows.