| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Bureaucracy swamps ISO meeting on Microsoft format | |
|
||
| Time: 00:47 EST/05:47 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
A meeting to hammer out a consensus on whether a Microsoft document format should become an international standard descended into near chaos this week, people close to the meeting told Reuters. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:56:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/3/2008 9:12:50 AM |
|
OOXML's failure at the BRM is a win for open formats and interoperability. Consumers rejoice.
|
| #2 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 3/3/2008 9:50:06 AM |
| OOXML is Open. OOXML provides interoperability. Yet again Latch only wants Open and Interoperability on his terms. Google's open source team looks like a bunch of Netscape cry babies imo. Sad to see them join the hate train. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/3/2008 10:04:40 AM |
| #2: As opposed to Microsoft's terms? I'll take mine, thanks, because my terms benefit everyone equally, while MS's terms benefit MS only. Yep, opposing Microsoft's unnecessary, bloated, self-serving unimplementable pseudo-standard is 'hate'. There you have it. |
| #4 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 3/3/2008 11:07:02 AM |
|
Sun has patents on ODF.
ODF is deeply, deeply flawed. OpenXML is the only hope for a sane document standard. |
| #5 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 3/3/2008 11:18:32 AM |
|
How does it benefit someone more than another?
Frankly I think if one were to look at the situation objectively you would actually find that it makes more sense for Microsoft to write any Office Document Standard over anyone else. You do realize that even with the, now long time, existance of Open Office as a "viable" alternative to Microsoft Office that Microsoft still has 90% of the install base? Many of the numbers attributed to Open Office in business (mostly measured by downloads) are simply users or admins tossing a word processor on someone's machine? That's not taking market share, that's expanding the market. I mean lets get serious Latch, Open Office was released in like 2000 with the goal of unseating Microsoft as the Dominant player in the Productivity market. Now after 8 years of providing a full office suite at a cost of ZERO dollars Microsoft still sells its software for $300+ and still holds serious majority of the Office marketplace. Now, knowing that a company who charges $300 for its product has successfully for nearly a decade and has been the dominant player for well over a decade should make you wonder... why wouldn't I want them to write the standard? You see, they are the standard. ODF has been out and in service now for 2 years (iirc). Do you see a flock of people jumping on the ODF bandwagon? Just because Google is throwing its money away at a new project (which will hurt Open Office more than Microsoft Office) doesn't mean its now the best. I would prefer Microsoft make the standard because they are the ones who know what they are doing. I can say this as fact because I don't believe that there is some worldwide covert war going on brainwashing users forcing them to use Microsoft Office. They have chosen Microsoft Office for years and in doing so have made Microsoft the defacto authority on how Productivity software formats should be standardized. Most of the dribble against OOXML is probably due to the fact that as a draft it is not complete. The ISO will make its recommendations and requirements and Microsoft will comply with. Only at that point will there be an "open document format" that will make a difference in the world. Oh and as I was thinking about this I remembered American Airlines went back to Microsoft Office and found it through Google: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/tech/A6AB17B34B1BA81ECC2573160079BFBC Also found the yearly "is it time for open office" article on slashdot in the same search (kinda like the "its the year of linux" articles). Boy have I not seen those articles at all over the past decade. http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/24/0058209 http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/19/017247&from=rss I do love the first comment in the second link: Yes, I concur. When I am onsite for service calls I always load up OOo for new installs. Most of my customers have peer-to-peer networks or are running Small Business Server. Outlook is a great program and if you have a SBS controlled domain every client gets their own copy of Outlook automatically. I do try to save them money on software so I can charge more for service calls Hai2U cost of OOo |
| #6 By 60455 (68.186.182.236) at 3/3/2008 11:23:38 AM |
|
The entire process has been politicized from day one.
The merits of OOXML have not been fairly discussed, much less examined and competitors of Microsoft are also the most vocal voting members. "Open" is being redefined in this context to mean that things are only regarded as open when they provide a disadvantage to Microsoft and an advantage to other companies; where such advantage must first result in measurable decreases in Microsoft marketshare. That defintion, seemingly driven by political interests alone, can't be allowed to represent what an ISO standard is in the minds of engineers and companies dependent upon related findings and certifications. One has to remember, ISO boards are supposed to be agnostic about such matters and weigh material based upon their merits / faults? They aren't in this case and the matter is being shaped not by market forces, or any recognizable sense that reflects consistency with established patterns inherent to earlier ISO assessments. |
| #7 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 3/3/2008 11:24:00 AM |
| Hey that first article wasn't for American Airlines it was for Automobile Association. Here's to you Mr. Article Skimmer Acronym Confuser guy. |
| #8 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 3/3/2008 11:27:09 AM |
|
#6 Though I find my "hate train" to be quite descriptive, you're description may be a bit more intellectual. :D
Oh and here's to Mob rule. Democracy in action is a beautiful site to see. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/3/2008 12:18:58 PM |
|
#5: Frankly I think if one were to look at the situation objectively you would actually find that it makes more sense for Microsoft to write any Office Document Standard over anyone else.
This would be true if we could count on MS to create a standard altruistically. You do realize that even with the, now long time, existance of Open Office as a "viable" alternative to Microsoft Office that Microsoft still has 90% of the install base? Many of the Good for them, but I'm not clear on how that is relevant to anything. numbers attributed to Open Office in business (mostly measured by downloads) are simply users or admins tossing a word processor on someone's machine? That's not taking market share, that's expanding the market. I mean lets get serious Latch, Open Office was released in like 2000 with the goal of unseating Microsoft as the Dominant player in the Productivity market. I don't know where you get your facts from. Openoffice was created to provide an open-source suite of office productivity tools. Whether or not it would displace MS Office was not a major consideration. Now after 8 years of providing a full office suite at a cost of ZERO dollars Microsoft still sells its software for $300+ and still holds serious majority of the Office marketplace. Locking people into a proprietary file format really does wonders for your monopoly. This is why MS fears open formats, as it abstracts the tool from the data instead of having the two tied together as it has been for the past many years. Now, knowing that a company who charges $300 for its product has successfully for nearly a decade and has been the dominant player for well over a decade should make you wonder... why wouldn't I want them to write the standard? Because if we did, they would come out with something like, oh I don't know, OOXML. Nobody but MS can implement it, or at the least you need MS's help to implement it. You see, they are the standard. ODF has been out and in service now for 2 years (iirc). Do you see a flock of people jumping on the ODF bandwagon? Yes, I do. There is a very long list of companies, applications and even countries that support ODF. The list was at over 500 entries last time I checked. And, if MS decided to support it alongside PDF (instead of some nasty, 3rd-party plugin), Office users might be more inclined to use it. I would prefer Microsoft make the standard because they are the ones who know what they are doing. They know what they're doing, do they? Is that why current versions of Office have a bit of a hard time opening and properly rendering older Office documents? See, that's the big picture part of an open format -- longevity. The ODF spec is fully implementable by anyone, and you will be able to open any ODF document 100 years from now. MS Office 2007 doesn't read & write the OOXML they submitted to ISO. This post was edited by Latch on Monday, March 03, 2008 at 12:19. |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/3/2008 12:20:15 PM |
|
#5: (cont.)
I can say this as fact because I don't believe that there is some worldwide covert war going on brainwashing users forcing them to use Microsoft Office. They have chosen Microsoft Office for years and in doing so have made Microsoft the defacto authority on how Productivity software formats should be standardized. People don't use Office because of some innate love of Microsoft; they do it because everyone else also uses Office and Office is good enough. Don't get me wrong, though. I think Office is a pretty good product and is worthy of use, but that is not the prime reason Office is selected. I liken it to standard NTSC versus HD. People didn't choose NTSC for the past 50 years because they like NTSC, it's just that that's all there really was if you want to watch broadcast TV. Proprietary file format is what keeps reinforcing MS monopoly in the office productivity market. It's not exactly a secret and is the reason why MS is desperate to make OOXML an ISO standard so that it meets the new guidelines while still being something that only MS can crank out. Most of the dribble against OOXML is probably due to the fact that as a draft it is not complete. The ISO will make its recommendations and requirements and Microsoft will comply with. Only at that point will there be an "open document format" that will make a difference in the world. The word is 'drivel', not dribble. And if OOXML is an incomplete draft then it has no business at ISO, and certainly not in the fast track. You keep fixating on OpenOffice when that has nothing to do with this. MS could support ODF tomorrow if it wanted to, and that support would add some substance to their interoperability pledge. However, they won't do that and instead will keep trying to force the round peg in the square hole by pressing to make their own pseudo-standard recognized globally. |
| #11 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 3/3/2008 12:29:46 PM |
|
" MS could support ODF tomorrow if it wanted to"
If they HATED their users they could. ODF is DEEPLY FLAWED. Plus, Sun can sue Microsoft if they choose for using the spec. Only idiots would suggest Microsoft support ODF and screw their customers. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/3/2008 12:30:46 PM |
|
#6:
The entire process has been politicized from day one. The merits of OOXML have not been fairly discussed, much less examined and competitors of Microsoft are also the most vocal voting members. I would say that OOXML has been analyzed to death and found to be deficient. Your accusation that MS's competitors have been the most vocal is incredible. I haven't seen any evidence of Google/IBM stuffing committees with their own partners, appointing their own employees as delegates, playing chair switcheroo games at meetings or inducing non-P countries to elevate to voting P status just for this vote. There has been ample, incontrovertible evidence that MS has been doing all of the above all over the world. "Open" is being redefined in this context to mean that things are only regarded as open when they provide a disadvantage to Microsoft and an advantage to other companies; where such advantage must first result in measurable decreases in Microsoft marketshare. That defintion, seemingly driven by political interests alone, can't be allowed to represent what an ISO standard is in the minds of engineers and companies dependent upon related findings and certifications. No, it isn't. That just sounds like sour grapes. Can you show any examples of this new re-definition? Usually its MS redefining terms to suit itself, so this would be quite the switch. One has to remember, ISO boards are supposed to be agnostic about such matters and weigh material based upon their merits / faults? Which makes it all the more incredible that they voted down OOXML even with MS cheating as hard as it could. They aren't in this case and the matter is being shaped not by market forces, or any recognizable sense that reflects consistency with established patterns inherent to earlier ISO assessments. The setting of a standard has nothing to do with market forces, and considering the chicanery MS has pulled over the past year, your bafflegabby comment about established ISO assessment patterns is almost insulting. |
| #13 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 3/3/2008 1:39:24 PM |
|
#9
This would be true if we could count on MS to create a standard altruistically. Nobody does anything altruistically. Everything done is selfish in one way, shape, or form. I'd argue that but most write huge books on the subject and this is just a tech forum. Good for them, but I'm not clear on how that is relevant to anything. It shows that in a markete where a viable alternative exists that is 100% free (purchase price at least) that they still dominate. Something that's not done through "well everybody else has it" alone mind you. I don't know where you get your facts from. Openoffice was created to provide an open-source suite of office productivity tools. Whether or not it would displace MS Office was not a major consideration Trust me. You are 100% wrong in that arena. The motivation of the vast majority was to provide an viable alternative to MS Office. It was financed by Sun and others because they knew that MS Office was and still is a huge source of revenue for MS. The Software Dev's involved didn't wake up one morning and realize their life goal was to make a productivity suite. They were movitivated by the challenge (selfish) to create a cool product or to strike back at evil "M$" (selfish) or both. Locking people into a proprietary file format really does wonders for your monopoly. Nobody is locked into these formats. Everyone can move to Corel or OOo or anythingelse for that matter. The world does not stop when you stop using MS Office. Nobody ships Word Docs back and forth that are so complex that the others reader (who is reading a proprietary format from an evil monopoly that never shares information) will not be able to render. What's more probable? A) People choose the Office Suite that helps them get their day to day work done more efficiently or B) They fear the wrath of their partners if they dare send them anything other than an MS Word file. Why is it that I can open and save to Microsoft Word 95/97/2000/xp File formats from Open Office? Possiblity and Probabilty are two very different things my friend. Does install base have something to do with people being worried about switching? Yes. Are there many other things involved in the decision to spend money on MS Office? Hell yes. This is why MS fears open formats, as it abstracts the tool from the data instead of having the two tied together as it has been for the past many years Sadly I think this is only a good thing in certain circumstances. While I know its hard for you to understand the fact that something is open and implemented by so many people makes it very hard to change it. After Microsoft loses control of its document format we may see a real stagnation in new features etc. when it comes to productivity. Every time Microsoft sees something that needs to change they'll have to go through the entire ISO approval process. Its good in some respect's and bad in others. Everybody should fear open formats to some extent in the realm of innovation. What about open formats for Database Software? Would you see Oracle, Microsoft jumping on that bandwagon? Sure it seperates the tool from the data but it also has the ability to put an anchor to drag on innovation and invention. Look at who stagnated and crappy HTML and its cousins have become? Its trash tbh. What about Postscript? What about POP3 and MIME? Sure it still gets the job done but its something that will be impossible to change. I say tread lightly. |
| #14 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 3/3/2008 1:40:32 PM |
|
Contd
Because if we did, they would come out with something like, oh I don't know, OOXML. Nobody but MS can implement it, or at the least you need MS's help to implement it. As its written you could implement it. That's just FUD. Most standards make me want to Vomit to implement. I've only implemented IMAP4, POP3, SMTP and I'm done ever doing that kind of stuff again. Hell the current Propreitary forumats of previous version of office have been implemented... what makes you think OOXML will be any different? Yes, I do. There is a very long list of companies, applications and even countries that support ODF. The list was at over 500 entries last time I checked. And, if MS decided to support it alongside PDF (instead of some nasty, 3rd-party plugin), Office users might be more inclined to use it Sorry, I meant software that matters. Frankly I don't care what Governments do since they represent such a tiny amount of money compared to the rest of the market. Governments do alot of stuff that is generally just, well, dumb. Their adoption has little to do with what I care about. The list of 500 Entries you talk about is almost exclusively government entities. They know what they're doing, do they? Is that why current versions of Office have a bit of a hard time opening and properly rendering older Office documents? So Microsoft has the world spoiled by backwards compatibilty and you see a small flaw and somehow they don't know what they're doing? Are you serious? Man can we put that kind of expectation on Linux or nearly any other open source initiative? See, that's the big picture part of an open format -- longevity I find that to be one of the probable problems with an Open Format. Nobody is all knowing enough to write a standard that will work in 10 years for the needs of users. Which leads to multiple versions of standards (note this is the same thing as an Word 97 Document to a Word 2000 but we'll leave that out). Problem is changing an open standard forces the entire world to rewrite their products and its impossible to notify everybody who has implemented it. If its a propreitary format with licensed partners developeing against the format the source company can make the change and broadcast to everybody on their list the changes and help them implement them through webcasts/websites/documentation or even programmer on programmer action. [The ODF spec is fully implementable by anyone, and you will be able to open any ODF document 100 years from now That point I'll go along with you on. Though Microsoft doesn't seem to be going down the tubes anytime soon. You still need the tool to read the data. In 100 years you'll have to find someone who has the standard then read it and build your own app to view the data. And quite frankly I think its a safe bet that if Microsoft is gone the world is having bigger problems :D I'm pretty sure as long as anybody actually needs to read a Word Document Microsoft will have a way to open it or convert it. But who knows at that point. |
| #15 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 3/3/2008 1:41:39 PM |
|
Contd again
they do it because everyone else also uses Office and Office is good enough. I think that's part of the decision but not nearly all of it. MS Office provides the best user experience (yes I've used OOo and yes I find it like using Word 95). Many people use MS Office because they've used it for years and it is simple and gets the job done reliably. Even OOo with all of its backing and work over 8 years still is buggy and clumsy I liken it to standard NTSC versus HD...that's all there really was if you want to watch broadcast TV You're write there. But most still haven't embraced HD. There are conversion and retraining costs and are not outweighed by the benefits of HD. People will have to be forced into it for the most part. And you also think that ODF is the New HD. See the problem is with productivity software is Microsoft is usually providing the new "HD" innovation. It's not exactly a secret and is the reason why MS is desperate to make OOXML an ISO standard so that it meets the new guidelines while still being something that only MS can crank out. You do realize that for it to be come an ISO standard it has to be implementable from the diretion of the standard? You do realize that other companies are already writing to the OOXML standard? Hell even Apple has filters for iWork and the iPhone. The word is 'drivel', not dribble True but its kind of an inside joke between me and other tech friends. I'll stick to drivel from now on out of respect for you :) And if OOXML is an incomplete draft then it has no business at ISO, and certainly not in the fast track Actually it does. Its not an "imcomplete draft" its a "draft" which it remains until its adopted. You keep fixating on OpenOffice when that has nothing to do with this My argument was simply that the most successful, dominate, and experienced player should be in charge of standardizing a format for a given market. Microsoft fits that role in every respect. I used Open Office to show that a free, fully featured software package had little effect on Microsoft's footprint in the market. You choose to believe its because all people are sheep and will go with the pack. I choose to believe that, while that has an effect, its because Microsoft knows what its doing. You do realize the amount of brainpower behind MS Office and this standards initiatie don't you? It far outweighs the script kiddies constantly badgering Microsoft when it comes to sheer intelligence and forward thinking. their own pseudo-standard recognized You have never provided anything other than opinion about this "pseudo-standard" label. At what point is it not a standard? Why isn't it? Aside from not yet being adopted does it not provide in written legible format how to read and present the data to an output device? Perhaps I should read this thing because apparently it doesn't do that at all. P.S. I love conference calls I get lots of time to write. |
| #16 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 3/3/2008 1:54:34 PM |
|
Took me awhile to remember this guy's name but here's an Office Program Manager from MS.
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/ Now I know that he's actually and android under the control of Bill Gates spouting MS FUD. But maybe just maybe you may find something useful on his blog when it comes to Office and XML support. |
| #17 By 1896 (216.189.183.117) at 3/3/2008 6:36:33 PM |
|
Until Open Office and other similar packages will not have something that replace Outlook there will be no viable alternative to MS Office; simple as that.
Just in case: I am a very happy user of Office 2007; it is not perfect and I would like to see a couple of changes in OK too but for me it is worth the money... so far. This post was edited by Fritzly on Monday, March 03, 2008 at 18:38. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:56:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
