No soft option

[rpm]

http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Software/1230.html

 

[AirWolf]

What will happen with the older office formats like doc and xls?

 

[MFour]

To me this is good news. Although M$ do have a couple of handy products, they also do tend to push their clients into being caught up into an endless process of payng more and more money, often for unfinished products.

One standard is all we need.

 

[fskmh]

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/09/05/microsoft_ooxml_defeat/

Given how encouraging today's results were, we believe that the final tally in early 2008 will result in the ratification of Open XML as an ISO standard.

This is not a defeat, only a temporary setback for MS. They will probably review the results and strategise on how to reduce the narrow margins by which they lost. The vote in Sweden showed what MS are capable of.

 

[milomak]

It seems to me the world is a lot more aware of MS and its tactics and is more willing to stand up against it. With that comes the actions of a wounded beast of course.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Open Standards FTW!!!

I don't want to be tied to a specific product. If something better than OpenOffice arrives, then I want to be able to switch without worrying that I'll lose all my hard work...

...having said that, I'm a keen supporter of OpenOffice, was just using it as an example tho...

 

[stoke]

Whatever replaces openoffice will definately have to be able to open openoffice documents, and office for that matter, otherwise it won't be used.

 

[AirWolf]

No denying that Open Office is a good product but I'm an MS Office addict

 

[Nod]

No denying that Open Office is a good product but I'm an MS Office addict

The first step towards recovery is to admit that you have a problem

OOo is good enough for most people. Percentage wise, not a lot of people use the really advanced features of any office suite.

 

[ebendl]

Remember, the Open XML standard is also open - thus anyone can use it.

I think Microsoft is pushing for this, because the have a lot of advance features built into Office that may not work to well (isn't directly compatible) with the ODF standard. I mean, basic text and formatting is fine - it is the difficult stuff such as tables, pictures, page layouts, columns, macros, objects (such as equations) and the combinations of all of these that complicates things
(and that OpenOffice fails with when it tries to open Word Documents).

Now the ODF format might make provision for all of these, but not necessarily in the way that MS (and thus everybody that has been using office for years) has been doing it. This might mean major changes to MS Office as we know it. I would rather that everybody adopt MS Open XML (Obviously office works great with this) and know that you'll have software that can open eerything now (including old docs) as well as in the future.

 

[Nod]

Remember, the Open XML standard is also open - thus anyone can use it.

Sure it is. ODF's specification is 600 pages. OOXML is 6000 pages. Which is the more complex?

I think Microsoft is pushing for this, because the have a lot of advance features built into Office that may not work to well (isn't directly compatible) with the ODF standard. I mean, basic text and formatting is fine - it is the difficult stuff such as tables, pictures, page layouts, columns, macros, objects (such as equations) and the combinations of all of these that complicates things
(and that OpenOffice fails with when it tries to open Word Documents).

The main reason OOo struggles to open doc files, is because MS actively changed the specification ever so slightly, to prevent people from reverse engineering it. The specification that was available to partners was also not complete, and one obviously had to pay for it. So it's not really OOo's fault if it could open a doc file accurately.

Now the ODF format might make provision for all of these, but not necessarily in the way that MS (and thus everybody that has been using office for years) has been doing it. This might mean major changes to MS Office as we know it. I would rather that everybody adopt MS Open XML (Obviously office works great with this) and know that you'll have software that can open eerything now (including old docs) as well as in the future.

MS previously also supported a XML format, but with a twist. It simply embedded a doc file in XML as an object, thus it would appear as if the competing product is unable to open the document. An example of this is the way word saves HTML pages.

It is obvious that MS has hidden a few things in that 6000page specification, that will only be found afterwards. Maybe even something like embedding a object in the XML document.

Also, what will cost more, in time and energy, developing software based on the 600pages spec, or from a 6000pages spec?

 

[Perdition]

Also, what will cost more, in time and energy, developing software based on the 600pages spec, or from a 6000pages spec?

That matters not to the end user, what matters to them is that their document is saved properly.

ISO is just a label and in the grand scheme of things makes no difference to MS other than political. The majority of people will continue to use Office and save to Open XML. Honestly it's funny how worked up people get over a document format.

 

[milomak]

It's not funny at all. I have to keep a copy of XP running at home in case I take work home. Why, because of the very fact that there isn't a single standard that would mean it doesn't matter if I open the file in Linux under OOo

 

[chiskop]

Honestly it's funny how worked up people get over a document format.

Yep, worked up enough to go and buy/stuff votes when a standard already exists.

 

[Nod]

That matters not to the end user, what matters to them is that their document is saved properly.

ISO is just a label and in the grand scheme of things makes no difference to MS other than political. The majority of people will continue to use Office and save to Open XML. Honestly it's funny how worked up people get over a document format.

If the format didn't matter, MS wouldn't be creating their own standard. Whoever owns the format, have the power. Imagine being forced to upgrade your office suit, because the format was changed, and you can't exchange files with your clients/business partners. Oh wait, it already happened

 

[Perdition]

Yep, worked up enough to go and buy/stuff votes when a standard already exists.

As I said, politics. MS are doing this as governments are starting to require ISO certification. Governments tend to be large customers It won't change anything for normal end users though.

 

[Perdition]

If the format didn't matter, MS wouldn't be creating their own standard. Whoever owns the format, have the power. Imagine being forced to upgrade your office suit, because the format was changed, and you can't exchange files with your clients/business partners. Oh wait, it already happened

Ummm Open XML is available and free for anyone to implement and use... I fail to see where the lock in is.

 

[Perdition]

It's not funny at all. I have to keep a copy of XP running at home in case I take work home. Why, because of the very fact that there isn't a single standard that would mean it doesn't matter if I open the file in Linux under OOo

Open Office are free to include Open XML support in their software as are all the other developers of office software.

 

[Nod]

Ummm Open XML is available and free for anyone to implement and use... I fail to see where the lock in is.

ODF had been free and available for a while. Why create something new? Why not simply improve on the ODF format? There is channels available for this.

You trust MS with your data?

 

[chiskop]

That argument works both ways. ODF is a standard, and anyone can use it - why don't MS?

Actually, come to think of it, it doesn't really work both ways. Some of the specs in MSOXML (or whatever they call it) include things like space like microsoft word 97, where that behaviour is not documented and the guidance is to not try to emulate the behaviour.

A 600 page well-documented established standard vs a second MS-written poorly specified 6000 page proposal that they've had to bribe to get this far: what's so difficult to understand?