Industry analysts and open source advocates believe that Microsoft will have no choice but to offer support for OpenDocument when more organisations start following the state of Massachusetts’ lead.
Industry analysts and open source advocates believe that Microsoft will have no choice but to offer support for OpenDocument when more organisations start following the state of Massachusetts’ lead.
The People’s Republic of Taxachussetts going over to an “open format” is not enough.
Nobody is interested in OpenDocument. The journalist is brain dead.
Well, Office has historically supported the formats of their best competitors and at this point Star/Open Office are about the only competitors with Microsoft Office. There are other, better, Office suites, but none seem to be out to take share from Microsoft Office (most seem to be content being a niche provider).
Why is it that you believe Open Document is such a bad thing? Standards have helped in presentation documents, ala WWW, so why not in printing documents?
This journalist really didn’t say much, he pretty much just quotes people and tries to paraphrase others….
“Nobody is interested in OpenDocument.”
wrong.
the entire tech industry will benefit from this and they are VERY interested in it.
Nobody is interested in OpenDocument. The journalist is brain dead.
Not just wrong…But DEAD WRONG.
Besides Massachusetts…
* BOEING
* Australian National Archives.
The Australian Tax Revenue service is threatening to
use OpenOffice with desktop Linux as they are currently
unsatisfied with MS’s licensing terms for Windows
Vista.
The IT guy in that department has no quams jumping
to open-source solutions as they’ve already done with
their servers without a problem.
If you look at past history, its a proven fact that
Microsoft uses manipulation of standards and arbitrary
formats as one of its tools to keep people locked in.
Their version of XML is a modified “locker” of users,
and everyone knows it. No one with half a brain is
gonna fall for MS’s BS. Everyone has smartened up.
(Well, except the gulliable who continue to eat MS’s
PR bull).
This is the “advantage” they have had against
competitors…Adopting OpenDoc would be, in a sense,
“shooting yourself in the foot”…But I believe it will
eventually happen.
MS will be placed in a position where the choice is :
“Adapt to a new situation, OR die”.
Of course, the problem with adopting OpenDoc is that
it levels the playing field for all…Which means MS
will have to *SHOCK* actually provide something
innovative to maintain market share!
Everyone with a full load of pubic hair knows MS
couldn’t innovate for crap. So the likelyhood of
adopting OpenDoc is low at this time.
But there’s no doubt MS will be eventually dragged in
kicking and screaming.
Google has just declared war on MS with some new
functions in their new toolbars. I don’t know if it
will catch on, but it allows you to use a word
processor or spreadsheet online (using OpenOffice
technology)…So everyone can view/edit an OpenDoc file
without needing to spend a dime.
The word free has often caught the eye of the average
Jane/Joe PC user…No need to spend $100+ on software?
How do I install it?
“The Australian Tax Revenue service is threatening to
use OpenOffice with desktop Linux as they are currently
unsatisfied with MS’s licensing terms for Windows
Vista.”
Yes, it’s a good leveraging tool. MS isn’t stupid, as much as some people have them out to be. They react to changing conditions, and if necessary, make changes that favor them. Sure, some places may have switched, but it’s a bit early to see whether this is really a long term trend. We’ll have to wait and see.
“The IT guy in that department has no quams jumping
to open-source solutions as they’ve already done with
their servers without a problem. ”
Interesting company. One IT guy making all the shots? It definitely is easier to do this on a smaller scale when there are fewer people to convince, but in larger setups, it may be a bit more difficult to make a wholesale change to <insert favorite OS here>.
That is the message that MS has been forced to swallow.
No longer will we put up with closed propriety formats!
No longer will we put up with patent encumbered formats!
No longer will we put up with tyranically monopolists dictacting what formats we use!
Are you listening Steve Ballmer? Go shove a chair up Bill’s arse while you yield to real open standards!
agreed!
Most of the documents ever created on the entire planet are already in a closed proprietary format. Nobody is burning in Hell because of it.
Microsoft, Wordperfect, Lotus, and others were building word processing applications a long time before anyone heard of open source, open standards, or open formatting.
This is a case where being first has a huge advantage over whoever comes along next. Microsoft got there early enough their format has become the standard used by nearly all businesses in the United States, and much of the rest of the world.
Most of the documents ever created on the entire planet are already in a closed proprietary format. Nobody is burning in Hell because of it.
Tha age of propriety file formats is over! Now is the time of open standards (and hopefully FLOSS too).
As for Ballmer, he can stick his propriety formats where the sun never shines!
The age of proprietary formats might be unattractive, but it’s by no means dead, dying, or wounded at this point.
Whoever is making the worlds most popular office suite is going to dictate what formats they’re going to support.
You don’t have to like it, but you are not going to change it either.
There is no race to open formatting, open source, or open anything….. It’s just not something most people think about on a daily basis.
Probably come as a shock most people have no idea what the hell Linux is, much less care.
Indeed, a lot of people do not know what Linux is. And a lot of people think Windows is the computer.
However, it is not these people we are talking about. We are talking about countries/governments/institutions pushing for a format that will not lock them into the fortunes of one company.
The most important thing on your computer is the documents you create yourself. And people dont want to be held to ransom to use them.
Can I open an Office XP file on an Office 97 machine ? Nope.
Why should I have to upgrade all computers to use Office XP if we are happy with Office 97… Just because the rest of the world did.
People who have a bit of a clue realise this, and so it is they who push for open formats.
Not people like you. Not people who think they “know computers” just because they learned which buttons to push in MSOffice.
So, the usual advice….
Get out of your trailer, wash your ass and pits, and go find a girl……..
wait, bad idea….
We don’t need your kind breeding
{Can I open an Office XP file on an Office 97 machine ? Nope.}
Actually you can if you also install OpenOffice.org on your Office97 machine along with Office97.
It won’t cost you anything other than disk space.
that is not the point
in fact, this goes against everyhting that Windows supporters believe.
Why should someone have to use a competitor product ?
{Why should someone have to use a competitor product ?}
Why should anyone HAVE to use any product at all?
Why should anyone be forced to dismiss from consideration a competitior product?
Why should any supplier be allowed to try to force customers to be unable to consider a competitor product?
Why should a monopoly not be forced to fairly compete with an emerging competitor?
Who is forcing anyone to do anything – other than Microsoft trying to force everyone to use only Microsoft product? The thing that everyone else wants is for people to be able to use any product of their choice – but for all products to be able to save in a common (and therefore interoperable) format. OpenDocument advocates are the ones who promote choice – not the other way around.
If Microsoft gave its customers the option to save to OpenDocument format – then everyone has a viable choice.
The age of proprietary formats might be unattractive, but it’s by no means dead, dying, or wounded at this point.
Oh, it’s very wounded (perhaps not in your region of the world, but it’s wounded none the less).
Whoever is making the worlds most popular office suite is going to dictate what formats they’re going to support.
Well, you might end up being less popular if you don’t support the formats the users want you to support
There is no race to open formatting, open source, or open anything….. It’s just not something most people think about on a daily basis.
I think this depends a lot on where in the world you live.
Probably come as a shock most people have no idea what the hell Linux is, much less care.
A lot of users in Europe care a lot more than you might think. Perhaps that’s a schock for you
Most people I know (mostly non-geeks) are complaining about the lack of one format that works everywhere. A few don’t care and use whatever is installed, and another minor group [read: me] has switched/is switching to non-MS systems.
But then… I’m danish. Things are different in other parts of the world
>>
Microsoft, Wordperfect, Lotus, and others were building word processing applications a long time before anyone heard of open source, open standards, or open formatting.
<<
Yes, that was before all the computers in the world were connected. There also used to be different standards for networking (netbios, ipx/spx . . ), and different standards for email. That was all fine 20 years ago, not today.
>>
This is a case where being first has a huge advantage over whoever comes along next. Microsoft got there early enough their format has become the standard
<<
Microsoft was not first. Far from it. Apparently being first does not always have *that* big an advantage.
“Most of the documents ever created on the entire planet are already in a closed proprietary format. Nobody is burning in Hell because of it. ”
Ummmm, wrong. Most of the documents ever created on the entire planet are in an OPEN format — the printed word. That was the revolution of the printing press.
Let’s hope we can get people to leave their .doc prisons.
You say true, I say thank yee.
For some time I’ve been saying to people to save their files in OOo format and make their MSFT friends accept that format rather than the other way around. The whole “integrate perfectly with MSFT Office” IMO has held it back instead of propelling it foreward. Perhaps this opendoc format is the ticket to finally have it as the primary saveas feature and thus the product moves foreward and innovates rather than being a clone.
Of course open source advocates are going to say MS must support OpenDocument. I wouldn’t expect them to say they should keep the .doc format. In the article you have an OOo marketing contact giving quotes. I mean really, did you expect anything else but that? I’d like to know what organizations are following Mass because the article didn’t state it. I think its all pure speculation of the OSS community’s hopes and dreams.
it’s no longer “dreams”, it’s reality.
deal with it cause it’s good for everyone.
WRONG!
It’s good for everyone EXCEPT Microsoft.
Hopes and dreams? Not quite. One state goes with OpenDocument, there are 49 others you still have to convince, plus some other territories. And the article clearly states more organizations are following, so I will ask again, who are the other organizations follwoing Mass?
Reality, not quite. One state goes with OpenDocument, there are 49 others you still have to convince, plus some other territories. And the article clearly states more organizations are following, so I will ask again, who are the other organizations follwoing Mass?
“Of course open source advocates are going to say MS must support OpenDocument.”
Why is that? Even though I’m not really an open source advocate I do want to see less of MS in this world. And I think it would be great if MS ignored the whole thing and stuck to their own format. Because if more and more people are demanding open formats and MS refuses to provide it to them, people will turn elsewere. And finally some competition can arise.
“Of course open source advocates are going to say MS must support OpenDocument. I wouldn’t expect them to say they should keep the .doc format.”
That doesn’t make sense. Open Source advocates would want Microsoft to keep their proprietary formats and not support Open Document. That way they would be left behind and locked out of new contracts just as they have chosen to be in the case of Massachussets. Because Microsoft isn’t Open Source even though they have claimed to be by offering to make their source code available to government agencies for inspection after all of the horrible security breaches and by taking code from developers and not letting them profit from it in their “shared [with MS] source” programs.
Open Source advocates would want market share to go to Open Source projects and software producers rather than to the feudal lords of old fashioned software development where you pay the laird for access to his god-given bounty but never own any of it yourself. That wouldn’t be advocating for Open Source. That would be advocating that proprietery software companies join the Open Source world. Surely it’s not hard to see that neither side would be happy with that, is it?
You don’t seem to have a very good understanding of this. Let them keep their 3 (or is it 4?) incompatible .doc formats. Let them not support Open Document. That’s what choice is all about and that is what they have chosen. Why would you think the exact opposite?
What you are describing is Open Source proselytizing, not advocacy. Never trust someone who proselytizes. They are unable to see that what is good for you may be different from what is good [to or] for them. They just want you to do what they do. That’s nonsense and should just be ignored. The less attention you pay to it the sooner it will be starved out. It feeds on any notice be it positive or negative. It’s a form of politics.
{Open Source advocates would want market share to go to Open Source projects and software producers rather than to the feudal lords of old fashioned software development where you pay the laird for access to his god-given bounty but never own any of it yourself. That wouldn’t be advocating for Open Source. That would be advocating that proprietery software companies join the Open Source world. Surely it’s not hard to see that neither side would be happy with that, is it?}
I am an open source user. I use open source because I know you can trust it not to contain any malware. I know that it contains malware because it is an open collaboration, and the people who develop it see other people’s code that goes into it yet they use those products themselves.
Anyway – I am one who would like Microsoft to offer the option in MS Office of saving to OpenDocument format. Further, I do not care at all what other people use or do not use for their Office application. Whatever other people choose to use is of no real concern of mine – except that I would like to reliably be able to read the documents they produce. To this end I have an interest if every can be persuaded to use a common, open standard, well documented, unencumbered and capable format. For now, OpenDocument is the only thing in this world that has those attributes.
The benefits of Microsoft offering OpenDocument support that I see are that:
(1) People who like to use Microsoft products can then happily interoperate with other people who like to use alternative platforms,
(2) People would not be locked in to Microsoft products alone,
(3) There is an excellent chance that the documents everyone produces can be read far into the future,
(4) People would not feel they had to choose a Microsoft platform just in order to be compatible with the majority of other people, and
(5) Microsoft customers would see a great benefit since Microsoft would be forced to be more competitive with competing products.
For all these reasons I would enthusiastically cheer any move by Microsoft to support OpenDocument format, even though I am not myself inclined to use Microsoft products (mostly due to the lack of security of Microsoft platforms).
“Anyway – I am one who would like Microsoft to offer the option in MS Office of saving to OpenDocument format. Further, I do not care at all what other people use or do not use for their Office application. Whatever other people choose to use is of no real concern of mine – except that I would like to reliably be able to read the documents they produce. To this end I have an interest if every can be persuaded to use a common, open standard, well documented, unencumbered and capable format. For now, OpenDocument is the only thing in this world that has those attributes.”
But that is not Open Source advocacy. It isn’t even Open Source proselytizing.
It *is* advocacy of open standards in the form of speaking for (ad vocare) support for the Open Document file format(s). I’d like it if MS adopted open standards and used them without breaking them unless they just couldn’t get away with it (like TCP/IP from FreeBSD). But if they don’t, it’s no biggy. There are lots of folks who will and I’ll just use their products instead.
…til Microsoft supports OpenDocument, because basically it would mean the dead of its cash cow MS Office. This time his competitor is free of charge, it is not Corel!
…til Microsoft supports OpenDocument, because basically it would mean the dead of its cash cow MS Office. This time his competitor is free of charge, it is not Corel!
No actually it won’t. If MS would support OpenDocument, say perhaps in Office 13 what do think corporate customers would favor. Upgrade to OpenOffice/StarOffice/some other office or to something their employees already know and also supports hundreds of docs and xls files created earlier.
It doesn’t matter if Microsoft supports it or not.
Times are changing and Open Document formats will force all players to compete based on the quality of products and services they offer. NO MORE LOCK-IN’S
This is GREAT NEWS for customers AND technology!
Anybody that doesn’t get this is either…
1) Troll
2) Ignorant
3) A Microsoft shill
This is all, of course, assuming that other places follow Massachusetts’ lead.
I think Massachusetts’ reasons are logical and not just localized to Massachusetts, but unless/until another large entity steps up and joins them, Microsoft really has no incentive. One you can ignore. Two you can’t. Three, you need to do something about.
{{This is all, of course, assuming that other places follow Massachusetts’ lead.
I think Massachusetts’ reasons are logical and not just localized to Massachusetts, but unless/until another large entity steps up and joins them, Microsoft really has no incentive. One you can ignore. Two you can’t. Three, you need to do something about.}}
How about all of Europe?
Is that enough “other places” do you think?
It could be. Have they committed, the way Massachusetts (and, apparently, Boeing and the Australian National Archives) has?
I don’t think people are going to switch until they have to, or there’s a lot of momentum in that direction.
(And then there are the people who still think that the blue E logo is The Internet, and who won’t switch to OpenDocument unless their computer comes preloaded with a word processor that uses it by default. It’s an uphill battle but it’s definitely winnable.)
… because if they did, any user would be able to switch to OO.o or Star Office and be guarenteed full compatibility. Microsoft wouldn’t like that, it’s probably why they’re trying to cover up their next “XML-based” document format with patents and DMCA threats.
… because if they did, any user would be able to switch to OO.o or Star Office and be guarenteed full compatibility. Microsoft wouldn’t like that, it’s probably why they’re trying to cover up their next “XML-based” document format with patents and DMCA threats.
And that sends a clear message to their customers that it is all about lock in, and in its foot steps too high prices on software and services. Once that is clear people will go for other solutions.
As long as Microsoft stayed with its old .doc/xls/ppt formats people accepted that as it is always expensive to switch to something new and untested. But now, staying with Microsoft will mean switching just the same. When people realize that many will get off the Microsoft train, leaving Microsoft with a lot fewer customers.
Here are a few references to Massachusetts’ take on open formats:
http://www.mass.gov/portal/site/massgovportal/menuitem.769ad13bebd8…
http://www.saugus.net/Dailies/daily_2005-09-01_1653/
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050330133833843
http://www.livejournal.com/community/saugus/4324.html
And here are a couple of examples of open formats being exclusively used already (both in Saugus, I’m sure there must be some, but I don’t know of other examples in other parts of Massachusetts yet):
http://www.saugus.net/Government/ByLaws/
http://town.saugus.ma.us/School/District/TAHG/
Home users and even most medium to large businesses really don’t care what format their information is stored in. Most information isn’t really needed for more than a couple of years anyway if you think about it. When was the last time you needed to open up a document on your home computer that was more than 3 or 4 years old? Even at work, when was the last time you needed to open up a word file that hasn’t been touched in more than 5 years? You just use whatever format is convienent at the time.
Now think about it from a government’s point of view. They want to keep information around for historical reasons as well as for logistical reasons. Who do you think is going to be around (and be relevant) longer, Microsoft and their .doc format or the State of Massachusetts?
Take a “big picture” view at the way we do things with technology. 20, 50 or 200 years from now people could have just as much trouble opening up ancient proprietary formats as we’re already having trying to get data off of old proprietary forms of media and tape storage.
Open standard data formats and open stanard storage media formats will be important if we expect any of the data from the “Information Age” to still be around later in the future. The Romans had stone tablets. We just have Maxtor hard drives full of .doc files. Which one do you think is going to be easier to read 500 years in the future?
As usual, everyone misses the point because the open source trolls have closed minds.
Open-source trolls aren’t the ones delibrately locking
people in, changing the format of their docs every few
years, forcing people to upgrade in a regular manner,
getting them to continually pay for a product that has
yet to offer anything spectacular since 1997 (besides the
paperclip).
The only closed minded people are ones like yourself.
Completely swallowed into MS’s marketing machine,
believing all their lies. I hope you don’t wake up to
see what’s really going on…Because Gates’s and
Ballmer’s kids need to earn billions as well.
As we have all missed the point, please explain rather than just criticising.
Home users and even most medium to large businesses really don’t care what format their information is stored in. Most information isn’t really needed for more than a couple of years anyway if you think about it. When was the last time you needed to open up a document on your home computer that was more than 3 or 4 years old? Even at work, when was the last time you needed to open up a word file that hasn’t been touched in more than 5 years? You just use whatever format is convienent at the time.
It happens sometimes that users will need to retrieve datas he/she saved five years or more ago if they are important . In a worst scenario, company that made proprietary format can be out of business and the softwares used to open that particular format would be unavailable making impossible to retrieve important datas especially in a case of crime scene investigations.
Getting an open document format will prevent these kind of issues. A wise advice is to transfert old proprietary format to open document format to prevent this scenario so any software that support this standard can get these datas. The example listed on the quote shows a complete lack of long term plan for home users and medium businesses.
In a worst scenario, company that made proprietary format can be out of business and the softwares used to open that particular format would be unavailable making impossible to retrieve important datas especially in a case of crime scene investigations.
The situation today is even worse than it used to be now that so many programs needs activation codes to get going. This means that you need to have the program installed on working hardware to read old documents. Just saving an old copy of the program will not protect you if the company goes out of business.
Besides, home users will go with OpenOffice because it is free and good enough. OpenOffice.org is just a few mouse clicks away, it installs without giving away creditcard numbers or requiring any software activation, it won’t nag you about Genuin Software advantage if you download addons or updates have happened the program “borrow” it from a friend.
Just like people preferred the at the time slightly inferior Internet Explorere to Netscape people will prefer OpenOffice.org over MS-Office because it is so simple to get.
I would be very surprised if OpenOffice.org had around 50% of the market in five years. The freely availability of OpenOffice and the needs for long term availablity of data to entities like governments, pharmaceutical industry and others will make it so.
“ust like people preferred the at the time slightly inferior Internet Explorere to Netscape people will prefer OpenOffice.org over MS-Office because it is so simple to get. ”
I think people “preferred” IE because it was already installed for them. Netscape was much better than IE early on, IMHO.
I think that quite a few people at home use Office because that is what they have to use at work. They want to keep it the same for several reasons…they already know how to use it (familiarity), and that they can use the same docs without problems (but plenty of examples of auto-upgrading of docs that causes problems).
At a place I worked at until recently, I was working as the I.T. person for the Personnel Department. They had a Personnel Administration Manual that was partly in WordPerfect format, partly in Word format, and partly in paper only because they lost the original files. Much of it was on floppy disks. I tried convincing them of the need to convert it to XML which would then allow them to easily create paper versions as well as online versions.
“Who do you think is going to be around (and be relevant) longer, Microsoft and their .doc format or the State of Massachusetts?”
Massachusetts is a Commonwealth. http://www.ubersoft.net/d/20050908.html
>>Most information isn’t really needed for more than a couple of years anyway<<
“Most”? Are kidding? That may be so, but having an *important* document inaccessible 10% of the time, or even 1% of the time in totally unacceptable.
Good point. The Romans btw did have papyrus…
http://cache.technologyreview.com/articles/02/10/tristram1002.asp?p…
Why would MS have to support OpenDocument? I can’t believe how many people are overlooking the recent MS announcement that the next Office would support PDF. Therefore, at least under the Massachusetts rule, Office would be compatible.
Tom
Why would MS have to support OpenDocument? I can’t believe how many people are overlooking the recent MS announcement that the next Office would support PDF. Therefore, at least under the Massachusetts rule, Office would be compatible.
Tom
Ummm, no, Mass. wants OpenDocument support. PDF is useless for anything other than Read Only docs. Believe it or not, poeple working for the gov do edit files 😛
Mass. has now specified that OpenDocument is the only suitable format for the government.
“Mass. has now specified that OpenDocument is the only suitable format for the government.”
To which a group at Microsoft shrugged their shoulders and said “oh well….Let’s get a beer.” Business as usual, and life goes on.
Probably just about how easily it got dismissed too.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051006155004596
** ISO standard (ISO/IEC JTC1 (International Organization for Standardization International Electrotechnical Commission’s Joint Technical Committee)).
** The Australian National Archive
** Corel has announced WordPerfect will support OpenDocument XML.
** United Nations: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
** web-based apps that can support that format on multiple platforms (eg Google, Knomos.org).
— and that is just the start.
“Mass. has now specified that OpenDocument is the only suitable format for the government.”
To which a group at Microsoft shrugged their shoulders and said “oh well….Let’s get a beer.” Business as usual, and life goes on.
Probably just about how easily it got dismissed too.
You must be joking – They had kittens at the news – they called out all th FUD writers they could manage to say the Mass decision was wrong. The arguements were such obvious false perversions of truth and the English language that they showed to anyone in the know the danger of staying with MS formats. That is public officials around the world who are considering moving to Open Document realised that MS was launching a FUD campaign and are more likely rather than less likely to move because of the FUD.
MS is running scared over this.
Who are we? Speak for yourself. I use proprietary file formats every day. If I want to publish something in a standard format, I use HTML or XML.
Microsoft provides the file formats that its customers want to use. What makes you so angry? Is it that Microsoft does not ignore its customers and respond only to you?
The people who have a vote here are Microsoft and the people who buy Office. That is as it should be and none of your vitriol will change it.
>>Microsoft provides the file formats that its customers want to use.<<
No. Microsoft has effectively forced the use of proprietary file formats on its customers. Msft has not offered it’s customers any choice.
Once you start using ms-office, you are locked in. You have to stay with ms-office, and msft’s monopoly.
Until now.
A few years from now, they will tell the world how they invented it. There will be lots of stories on ZDnet written by people close to them on how their OASIS membership made it all possible.
I friggin’ love MS Office. I really do. OpenOffice just doesn’t cut it for me.
But I’d feel a lot better if I could use the OpenDocument format with it “just in case” OpenOffice ends up being good enough 5 or 10 years down the road. I’m a packrat and I keep damn near every file and email I’ve ever created since Windows 98 came out and I started backing stuff up… I’d like to be able to open them someday in the future using what ever program happens to be best.
If you love MS-Office like what it looks like now, you might find that OpenOffice will probably much closer to that look than the next version of MS-Office.
The completely new GUI of Office 12 will probably make many organizations reluctant to due to the cost of retraining their staff. A switch to OpenOffice would be much cheeper in many cases.
“The completely new GUI of Office 12 will probably make many organizations reluctant to due to the cost of retraining their staff.”
On the other hand, if the GUI is proven to be much more efficient then it will reduce costs later on.
Besides they could just ignore Office 12 and continue using whatever they are using now if there’s no real benefits with an upgrade.
There’s plenty of companies still using Office 97 because it works.
{{ There’s plenty of companies still using Office 97 because it works. }}
OpenOffice.org 2 works even better than Office 97, it can read and edit most Office 97 documents, it supports OpenDocument, it is a free download and it isn’t too difficult to switch (retrain) users to.
OpenOffice.org 2 works even better than Office 97, it can read and edit most Office 97 documents, it supports OpenDocument, it is a free download and it isn’t too difficult to switch (retrain) users to.
As much as I’d like them to switch to OOo I can understand why they wont. If Office97 works for them then why change, unless it’s to get an open format? Switching to OOo will without a doubt cost them time and money, it might not be that much but why would you spend money to gain (in their view) nothing?
>>As much as I’d like them to switch to OOo I can understand why they wont. If Office97 works for them then why change, unless it’s to get an open format? Switching to OOo will without a doubt cost them time and money, it might not be that much but why would you spend money to gain (in their view) nothing?<<
This is the one reasonable arguement in this thread. Unfortunately, it does not help Microsoft at all – Microsoft will make no money out of people sticking with Office ’97.
Further, if some people do stick with Office 97, Microsoft will still have no lock-in of other customers because OpenOffice can read Office 97 files pretty much perfectly.
The only factor then becomes – what happens when OpenDocument format files start floating around the place – and Office 97 can’t read them? Remember there is a free alternative that can read OpenDocument and which can also read Office 97 files. It won’t take that many unreadable OpenDocument files before such a company has a clear reason to switch – and it won’t be for no reason, but it could be “for nothing” in terms of capital costs.
“The only factor then becomes – what happens when OpenDocument format files start floating around the place – and Office 97 can’t read them?”
Maybe people will load both apps and use both? Dunno…
“If you love MS-Office like what it looks like now, you might find that OpenOffice will probably much closer to that look than the next version of MS-Office.”
Also he didn’t say anything about the looks really. Perhaps he just loves the way it works? The features it provides?
I can honestly say that I like MS Office better than OOo for usability reasons. But then again I don’t really like any of them. I do love both GoBe Productive and KOffice. However, Productive is pretty much dead and KOffice currently lacks a lot of features I need. But in terms of usability both of them are way ahead of MSO and OOo.
They helped develop OpenDocument and they already implement an XML parser and writer that will support OpenDocument with a little work (and then add an undocumented patented binary format component to it so that a standard parser/writer won’t work with it.)
What makes them implement an open standard? Breaking open standards for lock-in purposes has almost always worked before. They even break their own de facto standards so they can force you to upgrade.
Well, they had to implement standard TCP/IP because of the Internet and the World Wide Web. It was bigger than they were. So they used the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack. That worked. They broke compatibility with HTML standards and with Java and got away with it. Well, they had to pay for breaking Java, but they made more than it cost them. They broke Kerberos authentication so that they could use it without letting standards conforming progrmas work with Windows. Give them your money so they can do more of this. The best way is to give it to them covertly by buying something with their product either preinstalled or just paying for the preinstallation and not getting the software. They don’t like that as much but at least they still get paid. And then they can always accuse you of doing it so that you can pirate their software. It ‘s working for them now. Go watch TV or something. We don’t need to think about this.
The only way to get this leopard to change it’s spots will be to dip it in a tub and dye it.
They claim that they are offering the hated Adobe PDF writing feature that competes with their upcoming Metro format due to customer requests. They also claim that they are 100% committed to the Windows platform so they won’t be offering Office for Linux, only Mac. Wait, when did Mac become [some] part of [100% of] Windows?
Did customers request a broken XML format? No, but MS is giving them one with no functional OpenDocument capability. Why is this confusing? Well, it’s not unless you are paying attention to what they say.
Just go to the MSDN web site and start requesting OpenDocument format support. Or better yet go there and request that they break OpenDocument standards so that they can lock people in to their upcoming products. See which one works.
[Microsoft] helped develop OpenDocument and they already implement an XML parser and writer that will support OpenDocument with a little work (and then add an undocumented patented binary format component to it so that a standard parser/writer won’t work with it.)
Microsoft is a member of OASIS. They specifically did not join the OASIS OpenDocument technical groups.
They could have, very easily, though they did not.
I had been given different [mis]information so I went the the OASIS site. Sure enough, they are a sponsor of OASIS but are *nowhere* are they listed as a contributor.
Thom Holwerda saying only nerds care about OpenDocument in 3.. 2.. 1..
I think people got it backwards.
All MS has to do, is not support opendocument, and the format will die pretty quickly, and everyone will keap using .doc . If MS supports it, then people might concivable be able to switch to something else.
But as long as they don’t support it, people won’t be able to switch to open document because they won’t be compatible with MS word which most everyone uses.
For open document to survive, MS must support it. NOT MS must support it for MS to survive.
If people keep using .doc that won’t be a drama to others who do switch to either StarOffice or OpenOffice. However this would be a drama to Microsoft – because those people who stick with using .doc won’t have any need to upgrade to Vista or Office 12.
So I think you have this backwards:
<<For open document to survive, MS must support it. NOT MS must support it for MS to survive.>>
Rather, for MS to survive and prosper, people must be made to abandon .doc and move to Vista and Office 12.
<<All MS has to do, is not support opendocument, and the format will die pretty quickly.>>
All people have to do is not support Vista and Office 12, and MS will die pretty quickly.
You actually think the all or most all of the 90 some percent of the world who uses windows and office is going to suddenly stop using it and not move to the next version?
If you do, your a fool.
People continually forget, that most people don’t have real issue with MS products, or rather, there are few people that have a problem with them that they are willing to switch to something else, and if they do, it would be to a mac.
For companies, the cost of Office isn’t that great. The cost of switching is.
And yes, if people do switch, it will be a drama to those who switch if MS doesn’t support open document. So you switch, ok, and now you have to send your document to someone in a different company, maybe you are working with them on something, and they use MS word, hey guess what, your out of luck. Think they are going to install OO.o just to read your document, try again. about as likely as someone installing a Divx player, or a Bittorrent client to get a file from you or to get it to work.
Its just like switching to linux, your free to switch to it and such. But when you find yourself not being able to get something to work, or there isn’t an app you need, your out of luck and it’s your problem since you decided to switch.
Now if you are in a situation where you don’t have to share documents with outsiders/others, then your fine. But then again, in that case you would have been fine with any document format before and opendocument wouldn’t be needed.
Until MS supports OpenDocument, its a no go since no one can be sure someone will be able to read them.
People predict things the MS has to do all the time to survive, has anyone been right yet? no. MS still keeps going and isn’t even coughing yet.
{{And yes, if people do switch, it will be a drama to those who switch if MS doesn’t support open document. So you switch, ok, and now you have to send your document to someone in a different company, maybe you are working with them on something, and they use MS word, hey guess what, your out of luck. Think they are going to install OO.o just to read your document, try again. about as likely as someone installing a Divx player, or a Bittorrent client to get a file from you or to get it to work.}}
What are you on about?
OpenOffice can read and write MS Wrod .doc files nearly as well as it can OpenDocument format. In fact it does a better job with leagcy Word .doc files than Word itself.
If your correspondent doesn’t have OpenOffice and you do, then just send any document to them formatted as a Word document.
I was talking about when you send a Open Document to a person with MS word. It doesn’t read them.
And saving it as a .doc format again defeats the purpose of opendocument. Its important to only have things in one format.
Furthermore, MS word having issues with older versions of .Doc is a urban legend spread by anti-ms people. Even if true, there would be no way that OO.o would be able to handle them better. Also OO.o .doc handling is just a hack, no one is going to use it for something important.
Also, far as sending a .doc file to someone, that would be something you would have to do everytime unless you know they have OO.o . Sending 2 copies of a file gets even more silly.
I also find it funny that one person in the article doubts MS claim about PDF support request. Anyone who thinks demand for PDF in Office wouldn’t be huge, but thinks people are going to go for OpenDocument in a big way is an idiot. “No way people would demand support for one of the most common document file formats in the world, but for sure they will demand one of the least common”
I’m also curious how the format stacks up. I see mention of it supporting change tracking, i’d like to know if it does to the same level you can in MS word. Can multiple people make changes with who did them shown and others accept and decline these changes. That is a hugely used part of MS word in a office environment.
{I was talking about when you send a Open Document to a person with MS word. It doesn’t read them.}
OK, so you re-open the document in OpenOffice, then save a new copy as a Word format document, and send them the copy.
{And saving it as a .doc format again defeats the purpose of opendocument. Its important to only have things in one format.}
Agreed that it is important to have a common forma, disagree that it defeats any purpose. You keep all your own documents in OpenDocument (so that you will always be able to read them) and you just send copies in Word to backwater correspondants that haven’t yet caught up with the new document standards.
{Sending 2 copies of a file gets even more silly.}
Not nearly as silly as not being able to read your own data in a few years time when Microsoft “forces” you to upgrade.
{but thinks people are going to go for OpenDocument in a big way is an idiot.}
What are you on about? All of Europe is looking at going for OpenDocument.
{i’d like to know if it does to the same level you can in MS word.}
I’d hope it does a hell of a lot better job than Word does. Change tracking in Word breaks largish documents badly.
{Can multiple people make changes with who did them shown and others accept and decline these changes.}
You MS drones amuse me greatly. You don’t even know the capabilities of other products yet you feel qualified to knock them.
I was asking a question about it. I looked it up and didn’t find a answer. I also never knocked open document far as it’s design. The design and capability of Open Document had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
It could be the best designed thing ever. It’s still doomed.
It could be the best designed thing ever. It’s still doomed.
An interesting assertion. How would you explain why a theoretically technically superior product or system would have no chance of succeeding? The Betamax effect maybe?
{Furthermore, MS word having issues with older versions of .Doc is a urban legend spread by anti-ms people. Even if true, there would be no way that OO.o would be able to handle them better. Also OO.o .doc handling is just a hack, no one is going to use it for something important.}
Au contraire – there is no urban legend about it.
MS Word started life as a DOS program. When MS brought out Windows 3.1 there was a flash new GUI version of Word then, but the real application that got people on to Windows 3.1 was Excel. Word didn’t really gain market share until Word95 came out along with Windows95.
In the early days of Word the market leaders in wordprocessors were firstly WordStar then later Wordperfect. Word and Wordperfect got into a bit of a market tussel – and one of the key features became how well each one supported the other’s format. When that happened, bot MS and Novell started to deliberately obscure the formats so the competitior product would have a hard time reading it.
The eventual outcome was that later versions of the same product also had trouble reading files from the previous versions. Happily, Microsoft discovered that this incompatibility actually worked in their favour, as people had to upgrade in order to be able to still read most documents.
AFAIK in the present day a recent version of MS Office will not read files generated by Word for Windows 3.1 or Word95.
OpenOffice.org will do a better job of reading those files than MS Word itself will. The OpenOffice.org project has in fact expended a great deal of effort deconstructing legacy Office file formats – they are the world experts on the topic. Microsoft on the other hand has expended a great deal of effort over the years in obscuring and trying to keep the formats closed and secret and undecipherable.
It is this very problem of not being able to read MS Office documents created just 10 years ago that Mass. set out to fix in the first place.
“And saving it as a .doc format again defeats the purpose of opendocument. Its important to only have things in one format.”
Nonsense. The purpose of Open Document is for long term storage of a document in a standard open format that can be used in the future. If you can save it as a .doc file then so much the better. That, however, is what is known as a value-added feature that resides within your word processor. It has nothing to do with the Open Document format other than to demonstrate that it has potential for flexibility because it’s open and programs that understand the format can do intersting things with it.
It’s only important to have things in only one format? Why?
“Furthermore, MS word having issues with older versions of .Doc is a urban legend spread by anti-ms people.”
You apparently don’t upgrade your Office program nor read computer magazines or you wouldn’t say something this silly.
“Even if true, there would be no way that OO.o would be able to handle them better.”
OO.o doesn’t need to handle them better, especially if you’re not going to be using them often nor for a long time.
“Also OO.o .doc handling is just a hack, no one is going to use it for something important.”
If no one uses hacks why are they important enough to be created in the first place? You defeat your own logic.
“Also, far as sending a .doc file to someone, that would be something you would have to do everytime unless you know they have OO.o .”
And if you know they have OO.o you don’t need to do it even once. But you would need to send it in some format that they can read every time no matter what software either of you have or can get. If they actually *want* to hear from you they might be willing to install a free program. It doesn’t need to be OO.o. It could be AbiWord today and KWord/KOffice next year once the Windows port is completed. Maybe they have a Solaris box or can boot up from a Sun Java Desktop CD and just pull your doc into Star Office. Are these things unlikely or actually impossible?
Is there a point to this logic chopping? If they don’t want to hear from you they can delete your correspondence no matter what format that it’s in unless it contains a virus. Word is good for that.
“Sending 2 copies of a file gets even more silly.”
Since sending 2 copies is silly, then don’t be silly unless you choose to be for some reason ; perhaps you are a comic. A new field: Word Processing Comedy! And here comes some of it now:
“I also find it funny that one person in the article doubts MS claim about PDF support request. Anyone who thinks demand for PDF in Office wouldn’t be huge, but thinks people are going to go for OpenDocument in a big way is an idiot. “No way people would demand support for one of the most common document file formats in the world, but for sure they will demand one of the least common”
Do you believe everything MS says, or just that they got requests for PDF support? Would this be the first time they announced support for a feature and then didn’t provide it?
Why is PDF support in a word processor huge except that it means that you don’t have to buy a PDF writer? If not having to buy the software is huge then aren’t you arguing for OO.o? You don’t have to buy that and it does .doc and PDF. And it’s designed to be a PDF reader as well, not just to publish in PDF format like Office 12.
Why does Office offer WordPerfect formatting? It’s not very common, although today it may be more common than Open Document. No big demand for it but MS provides it? Why is that?
Why are they going to switch to a [broken] XML format in Office 12? Because no one was demanding that but it is nearly Open Document compatible which they don’t want to provide, at least to Massachussets (and the EU and the Australian National Archive and the governments of Peru and Indonesia).
So much for word processor humor.
“I’m also curious how the format stacks up. I see mention of it supporting change tracking, i’d like to know if it does to the same level you can in MS word. Can multiple people make changes with who did them shown and others accept and decline these changes. That is a hugely used part of MS word in a office environment.”
It’s free. Why don’t you find out. It’s a 76.8 MB download for the Windows version of 2.0 rc1. Then your curiosity will be satisfied and you’ll know whereof you speak. Let your fingers do the talking.
And if your correspondent needs to be able to read your documents in order to get your business will he just shrug you off or demand that you buy the same kind of software he uses when he can just download one copy of AbiWord or OO.o and install it on as many machines as he wants ( and not install it on machines he coooses not ot put it on)? Now there is some backward thinking.
{And if your correspondent needs to be able to read your documents in order to get your business will he just shrug you off or demand that you buy the same kind of software he uses when he can just download one copy of AbiWord or OO.o and install it on as many machines as he wants ( and not install it on machines he coooses not ot put it on)? Now there is some backward thinking.}
What in heavens name are you on about?
If I am a customer and a correspondent wants my buisness he would be foolish to demand anything at all of me. He might ask me how to read the document I sent – and I could tell him to download OpenOffice.org or I could (since I use openOffice.org myself) re-send my document to him either in Word format or in PDF format.
If I am the buisness and a customer cannot read my documents (because they are in OpenDocument format) then I could (since I use openOffice.org myself) immediately offer that customer a copy of the same document but formatted in Word – but in reality I would actually be giving my customers documents in PDF format, and not in Word or OpenDocument format.
“OpenOffice can read and write MS Wrod .doc files nearly as well as it can OpenDocument format. In fact it does a better job with leagcy Word .doc files than Word itself.
If your correspondent doesn’t have OpenOffice and you do, then just send any document to them formatted as a Word document.”
Yes, this is one way. I think the biggest today’s change is that if your correspondent has no tool to open the OpenDocument-document you sent, you may suggest him to use an open tool (OpenOffice.org or Abiword) to view your document. And all this for free. Forcing the destinator to buy a tool, in order to be able to read the document you sent, seems to me a little bit more critical. The destinator has no real excuses for not beeing able to read your doc.
lots of foundation open source software keeps breaking compatibility, from linux c library to desktops like kde and gnome, with every major release breaking binary compatibility a lot of apps have to play catch up and upgrade. while meanwhile winxp can still run dos,win31,win95. who can say for sure what will be the fate of opendocument v1 documents when apps have to support opendocument v9.
I think that the majority of OOS software don’t have this kind of problems. The only (in)famous source of incompatibilities is the G++/libstdc++. AND you will never have this problems with data, only with binaries.
Anyway, all OSS that run in windows does not have this problem (at least for now) and even in other platforms, this compatibility is ensured. For example RedHat Enterprise Linux ensures compatibility for previous versions, and Solaris (recently opensourced) is ultrafamous for backguard compatibility. So, I think you are mostly wrong.
Very little software on Linux (in my experience) has any trouble with binary backwards compatibility – and this is most certainly not a problem at all for open source software since one can simply re-compile (or just update a binary repository).
“who can say for sure what will be the fate of opendocument v1 documents when apps have to support opendocument v9.”
This is exactly the point. A future application using OpenDocument v9 as standard may not be able to read OpenDocument v1. It does not remain the documents saved with the OpenDocument v1 format is an open and “readable” format. It will still be possible to create a tool, that reads v1-documents and eventually converts then into v9-documents.
Today, I can check the content of a document in OpenDocument v1 with Notepad.
I think that this is an incredible oportunity por OO.o and the Sun/OSS team working on OO.o. If they prove that OO.o is good enough, probably they will get new clients, wich means more developers, wich means more clients. On the contrary if they miss this opportunity, MS Office will be the big winner. OO.o needs more people using it, so they can get momentum. Microsoft is using his monopoly agains OO.o (nobody else could ignore so easily important customers). They are using one of their last cards. I like OO.o so I hope they are ready.
I don’t understand the vitrolic statments here, if you don’t like Office just use something else, just stop whining about it.
It’s not as if you havn’t got any choice. I for example use Word for letters and very short documents (that’s what it is good for), for larger documents I use Latex. For those who don’t like latex use open office. Is is simply the case that many of you have simply nothing better to do?
As for open document, today I can read and edit documents I wrote in Latex 15 years ago. I wonder if those who will use open document today will be able to find a word processor that can read it in 15 years?
{{As for open document, today I can read and edit documents I wrote in Latex 15 years ago. I wonder if those who will use open document today will be able to find a word processor that can read it in 15 years?}}
Absolutely – that is the whole point. It is a fully documented standard. Anyone can work out how the information is stored within – and many parties already have working implementations. There are already about half a dozen.
Even better, many of the existing implementations are open source, so anyone can see how to write code to implement the standard. Or they can just re-compile the code on whatever platforms exist in 15 years time.
It’s funny how so many people rave about OpenDocument, when it is unproven and severely limited.
I for one will sit back and just laugh at everyone that will complain about not being able to do all that could with other word processors… that will bitch about nothing working the way it used to work… etc.
It’s funny enough today when I see people using both commercial and non-commercial offerings, because someone high up in their workplace decided to standardize on that, and the actual users end up with products that won’t even print out what is seen in print preview (Lotus Notes have this inability for example).
And guess what these users prefer if they could chose themselves? MS Office, believe it or not. Why? Because it actually works for them. And this is including users that never used MS Office before they started using these other offerings, but later got a chance to try it.
{{t’s funny how so many people rave about OpenDocument, when it is unproven and severely limited.
I for one will sit back and just laugh at everyone that will complain about not being able to do all that could with other word processors… that will bitch about nothing working the way it used to work… etc. }}
It is funny how people say this sort of thing when it just isn’t true.
Here is the real truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
Bring it on. I’d love to use and support a community owned document format. Let’s make it happen.
“ODF [OpenDocument] is quite new, and it will take a while for demand to build. But I don’t believe it will need 120,000 requests a month to change Microsoft’s mind; just a few more high profile departures like Massachusetts,”
The entire state of Massachusetts decided not to use Microsoft Office because it doesn’t support ODF [OpenDocument]. How many users is that?
Only 80,000 desktops. On the other hand they will be used every work day, so at 20 work days a month that would be 1.6 million requests for OpenDocument per month. {d^%|>
…and I’d encourage Microsoft to support OpenDocument fully; no odd technical limitations or practical issues.
I would encourage rather than oppose Microsoft Office at that point.
Do I think that Microsoft will support OpenDocument at all?
==> Not till they feel excessive pain not supporting OD.
Do I think that Microsoft will support OpenDocument as a first-rate file format?
==> Not till the doublespeak about ‘no, we are really more compatable!’ is not believed by the majority of CTOs.
In the best of cases, this level of pain could take 4 years…unless something along the lines of Google and Sun make a popular on-line version of OOo/StarOffice that by default supports OD and not MSO formats.
I can’t believe so many people are so passionite about a document standard.
Here’s my take:
-business people (the suits) will never put up with changing to open office. they are the money guys and don’t like screwing with something that works. they passionatley love Word, Excel and Powerpoint.
-designs from committees usually suck and are slow moving. this is one of the many reasons companies prefer to stick with proprietary formats. if MSFT went with Open Document and wanted to add a feature., they would get bogged down for months/years trying to work by committee.
– proprietary standards are ok when they are ubiquitous. doc, pdf, and flash are 3 examples of standards that are everywhere. almost no one (except uptopian “all bits must be free” tech weenies) has a problem with them. yes, they are controlled by a single entity. but big deal.. there are many software packages that read/write them, so who cares?
– people don’t like publishing doc files to the web. But Office 12’s PDF support will address this.
I think the PDF support for Office 12 will kill any movement to Open Document.
JMO. We’ll see what format people are using in 5 years. I’m guessing PDF/DOC/PPT/XLS (sound familiar)?
-business people (the suits) will never put up with changing to open office. they are the money guys and don’t like screwing with something that works. they passionatley love Word, Excel and Powerpoint.
Good point. If it ain’t broke, don’t implement a fix.
-designs from committees usually suck and are slow moving. this is one of the many reasons companies prefer to stick with proprietary formats. if MSFT went with Open Document and wanted to add a feature., they would get bogged down for months/years trying to work by committee.
Microsoft is part of the [OASIS] committee. They’ve been working on it for years with many other vendors. What they have built in response to it, or in spite of it possibly, so far are only intentionally broken XML format/parser/writer tools that they are going to put into Office 12 without asking for customer input and while claiming that these broken tools which could implement OpenDocument format support aren’t being asked for. Let’s go back to not fixing what ain’t broke, as above.
– proprietary standards are ok when they are ubiquitous. doc, pdf, and flash are 3 examples of standards that are everywhere. almost no one (except uptopian “all bits must be free” tech weenies) has a problem with them. yes, they are controlled by a single entity. but big deal.. there are many software packages that read/write them, so who cares
I don’t know who you’ve been listening to but I hear complaints all the time about PDF and Flash. Most of the complaints about PDf are that it is clumsy and slow. The flash complaints are mostly that they hate being interrupted by flash stuff on the web and don’t like the high overhead of bandwidth that it uses. The .doc complaints tend to be as you characterize them with a scattering of “Sure it’s a .doc format but my Word 95/97/2000/whatever STILL CAN’T READ IT!
– people don’t like publishing doc files to the web. But Office 12’s PDF support will address this.
Yeah. Instead of unreadable .doc files all Office 12 users will automatically publish everything to the web in, possibly broken, we don’t know yet, PDF format. That’s a good way to address this even though since .doc files are ubiquitous it’s not an actual problem. (o;
As always, time passes and, just as you say, we find out 5 years later what the answers are.
This just means MS Office will have to stand on its own accord, not from vendor lock in.
I shall call my standard document format:
TEXT, 1.0.