| 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 |
 |
Microsoft Interoperability Bridges & Labs Center website | |
|
||
| Time: 12:58 EST/17:58 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
The Interoperability Bridges and Labs Center is dedicated to technical collaborative work between Microsoft, customers, partners and open sources communities to improve interoperability between Microsoft and non-Microsoft technologies. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:05:20 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/6/2009 7:48:07 AM |
| Wow, now they need an entire building to convince the world that they don't just pay lip service to interoperability? |
| #2 By 23603 (96.21.51.190) at 7/6/2009 10:47:27 PM |
|
Bravo Latch!! What a pathetic comment!
|
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/7/2009 7:49:42 AM |
| #2: At least it had something to do with the topic at hand... unlike yours. |
| #4 By 218115 (65.90.202.10) at 7/7/2009 8:12:30 AM |
| Interoperability is not enough. I will be satisfied with nothing but a full cavity search for Microsoft (and myself). |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/7/2009 9:45:02 AM |
| #4: Interoperability is fine, just as soon as MS decides to stop talking about it and actually do it. And I mean full interoperability, not the usual MS shell game of "pay us and we'll allow you to interoperate with us, but not the other way around". |
| #6 By 23603 (208.67.168.177) at 7/7/2009 10:03:33 AM |
|
Microsoft is not perfect.... no company are perfect.
In the last 2 year, we have seen that Microsoft is trying hard to work with competitors to make sure that everyone's product can talk to each other. Even thought I am not a HUGE fan of Microsoft, I applause their itiniative. You will NEVER see that from the Open source Community. |
| #7 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 7/7/2009 10:34:48 AM |
|
ridiculousness And I mean full interoperability...
I have yet to encounter a situation where a set of requirements existed that we were unable to "interoperate" from/to Microsoft's stack. In fact, it has always been Microsoft that has been the "big guy" and had tools, or a means available. Most obviously, we're not that big a sample upon which to base things, but we are diverse and have addressed a lot of challenges. Interfacing with 11 various and very old DoD databases, and countless payment systems from both national nameplates and processors to highly proprietary medical records and practice management systems - to instrumentation for chicken farming and their coops. In each case, Microsoft has been the one that had the means. In some cases the effort was painful, but I haven't identified where it was Microsoft that was the one presenting the challenges.... ever implement First Data's .NET API for CC transactions? Microsoft has been so "open" to so many ideas and so many initiatives. Take MVC under ASP.NET. The implementation is great and fully embraced devs who insisted that Microsoft support that. They did and actively engage devs using those tools. As I said, from where I sit, MS is the absolute best when it comes to interoperability and while there will always be work to be done, their actions suggest they are only going to accelerate efforts to support any set of requirements one may think of. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/7/2009 11:57:12 AM |
|
#7: MS is great at helping get everything onto Windows, known as intraoperability. Going from Windows to something else is where they seem to go off the rails. Interoperability is supposed to be a two-way street. With MS, it's a one-way street that is only open when it suits their interests. That, in itself, is fine, but don't pepper the press with all kinds of hollow words about interoperability when they completely lack sincerity.
Get back to me when MS Office can output ODF that isn't garbled beyond recognition and readable by other ODF-supporting apps out there. While we wait for that to happen, get back to me when their ISO standard can be implemented by someone who isn't an MS partner. While we wait for that to happen, perhaps MS could entertain us with some kind of statement on their support for HTML 5. |
| #9 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 7/7/2009 12:32:16 PM |
|
It really hacks me off that I went into my AT&T Mobile store and they wouldn't help me setup my Verizon phone and transfer my data. AT&T must be stopped. This post was edited by MrHumpty on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 at 12:32. |
| #10 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 7/7/2009 12:47:12 PM |
|
Latch, yesterday, you once again branded guys like me as MS shills... I think the word you used this time was "reflexive" as in reflexively defending what the company does.
On the contrary, I think my and other posters' comments reflect a lot of thought - certainly more than many of your one-liners. I think it is fair to say that many pragmatists posting here, work hard to share solutions with others working on and with Microsoft software - as if any reminders are needed drawing one's attention to the name of the site? Now you toss out the latest buzz words and phrases around HTML-5. The next item in the ever predictable stable of BS laden issues casually thrown out there for people to lap up. Well, let's address that. First, the HTML-5 draft spec is huge and all over the place. Microsoft wants to advance its use as quickly as possible and recognizes that there are very beneficial components that can be advanced more quickly and should be. Not everyone agrees, but most agree that moving more quickly - componentizing the spec, may be the way to go to get such specs in the hands of devs earlier and faster. MS therefore wants to break HTML-5 specs into parts and get it out there now. To quote: "Microsoft wants to hasten HTML 5’s arrival, but its proposed solution may not sit well with all parties." So once again, there is thoughtfulness and consideration, against BS utterances from too many like Latch. Read more here, Microsoft has been advancing HTML-5 for a long time, http://www.sdtimes.com/(X(1)S(iuhrlwjh54ye5f55o0gi2055))/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=32067&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/7/2009 1:33:29 PM |
|
#9: Sigh. Your bad analogy would be much more apt if the following were also true,
a) AT&T announced regularly that they will assist movement between phones carriers b) AT&T can successfully import the settings of any other phone & carrier into their phone c) AT&T can't ever seem to export phone & carrier from their phone to any other phone without garbling the data and losing your address book d) AT&T charges you $500 to get access to their intellectual property in order to do the move #10: Latch, yesterday, you once again branded guys like me as MS shills... I branded you a shill, not guys like you. You and parkkker specifically. Full stop. The end. On the contrary, I think my and other posters' comments reflect a lot of thought - certainly more than many of your one-liners. You always have thought very highly of yourself and your deep thoughts. I'm sure you're the smartest person you know. Now you toss out the latest buzz words and phrases around HTML-5. The next item in the ever predictable stable of BS laden issues casually thrown out there for people to lap up. I also talked about ODF and OOXML but you chose to skip over those for some unexplained, mysterious reason. In my mind, those two examples alone show MS for the interoperability hypocrites they are. Microsoft wants to advance its use as quickly as possible and recognizes that there are very beneficial components that can be advanced more quickly and should be. While I agree with this in principle, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. MS says a lot of things and I've learned over the years to not take what they say too seriously. They also have a history of partly implementing a spec and then doing their own thing so that everyone follows MS instead of the spec. Just this week there was some kerfuffle about the <video> tag in HTML5 and how it would be implemented. While there was no consensus on exactly how to do it, MS was conspicuously absent from the discussion. This is strange considering they're the dominant player on the web. But then again we've seen this same behaviour before with the ODF OASIS working group. MS sat back for the entire process and then, at the 11th hour, claimed that nobody took their needs into account so they have to do their own thing with OOXML. I can see it happening with HTML video. MS will wait while everyone else hashes it out, and then they'll try some proprietary power-play. This post was edited by Latch on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 at 13:34. |
| #12 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 7/7/2009 4:58:19 PM |
|
#11, That's all you got, huh? You're in a hole and you pick up a shovel? Pretty funny.
MS implements ODF better than any other I have seen and when they actually come up with formulae that rise to the level of a standard, I am sure that MS will include that support within its Excel product. I'm equally certain that the other side will simply continue to change the rules, move goal posts and apply entirely different rules as they go along. I've often wondered when OSS/FOSS would stop complaining and simply work and do something unique. |
| #13 By 17855 (205.167.180.131) at 7/8/2009 8:25:09 AM |
|
If you want ODF functionality in MS Office you should go here:
http://www.sun.com/software/star/odf_plugin/ Yes this will install and work with the MS Office 2007 SP2. |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/9/2009 1:09:04 PM |
|
#13: Why would I need to do that when Office 2007 SP2 supposedly has the best ODF implementation on the planet? ;)
|
| #15 By 28801 (71.58.225.185) at 7/9/2009 5:27:02 PM |
|
#13: So what you are saying is that the Office APIs exposed by Microsoft allowed a competitor to create a plug-in that can save Office documents as ODF files. Sounds like Office is pretty interoperable to me! Looks like the new building is already paying off.
|
| #16 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/10/2009 7:41:34 AM |
| #15: The word you meant to use was "intraoperable". MS has always made it easy to import to Windows. Export is a bit of a problem though. Kind of like MS Office's ODF output and how it can't be read by anything else on the planet that supports ODF. |
| #17 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/10/2009 9:35:47 AM |
|
#16:
1) Install Office 2007 2) Install Office 2007 SP2 3) Open or create a document and add some text, pictures, and tables (no functions) 3) Choose "Save as OpenDocument Text" and save the file 4) Download and Install OpenOffice 5) Start the Writer program 6) Open the document that was saved in step 3 Works for me. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:05:20 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
