-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: If you were buying a TV today, which brand would you choose?
No soft option
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
AirWolf
Honorary Master
What will happen with the older office formats like doc and xls? 
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.
One standard is all we need.
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/09/05/microsoft_ooxml_defeat/
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.
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.
The_Unbeliever
Honorary Master
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...
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
Honorary Master
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
Honorary Master
No denying that Open Office is a good product but I'm an MS Office addict
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.
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.
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.
Sure it is. ODF's specification is 600 pages. OOXML is 6000 pages. Which is the more complex?
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.
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
Expert Member
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.
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
Executive Member
Yep, worked up enough to go and buy/stuff votes when a standard already exists.
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
Expert Member
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
Expert Member
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
Expert Member
Open Office are free to include Open XML support in their software as are all the other developers of office software.
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
Executive Member
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?
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?