Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 Released, Supports ODF Out of the Box

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the file-formats-rule-the-world dept.

Software 274

shutdown -p now writes "On April 28, Microsoft released service pack 2 for Microsoft Office 2007. Among other changes, it includes the earlier-promised support for ODF text documents and spreadsheets, featured prominently on the 'Save As' menu alongside Office Open XML and the legacy Office 97-2007 formats. It is also possible to configure Office applications to use ODF as the default format for new documents. In addition, the service pack also includes 'Save as PDF' out of the box, and better Firefox support by SharePoint."

cancel ×

274 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great (4, Funny)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800233)

Now we're gonna get the swine flu spread all over from the flying pigs.

Re:Great (0, Offtopic)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800245)

Now we're gonna get the swine flu spread all over from the flying pigs.

I didn't think we would see this day. So either its flying pigs or hell freezing over. Then again maybe there is a side to Microsoft that we weren't even aware of.

Re:Great (0, Offtopic)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800513)

Swine flu and I'm pretty sure Hell freezes over in the Winter, if you're talking about the place in Michigan.

Somehow, I'm starting to get the feeling that this is a huge pun organized by some higher power.

What promises are people gonna have to start keeping next? The ones based on, "not in a million years"?

Re:Great (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800559)

Where's that bridge you were going to sell me?

Re:Great (1)

gadget junkie (618542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800695)

Now we're gonna get the swine flu spread all over from the flying pigs.

I didn't think we would see this day. So either its flying pigs or hell freezing over. Then again maybe there is a side to Microsoft that we weren't even aware of.

"Freezing: Microsoft's Answer to Global Warming!!!! (c)"

Re:Great (1)

red_blue_yellow (1353825) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800261)

This seems nuts to me... I always thought the last thing Microsoft would do was allow you to work with truly open formats. What would prompt them to give FOSS such an easy opening?

Re:Great (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800325)

What would prompt them to give FOSS such an easy opening?

There are still a great many things they can do to ensure people use their format including...

  . Make loading/saving ODF documents much slower.
  . Save documents in such a way that they dont always render correctly when loaded in other software.
  . Refuse to load some files claiming they are corrupted.

And dont forget they still have the only software that can render their format 100% correctly because of all the 'render this the way Office 97 does' legacy crap. They can claim to be the only software that fully supports all the ISO standards.

Re:Great (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800417)

Oh, shut the FUCK up.

Re:Great (3, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800337)

Embrace.

Extend.

Extinquish.

Re:Great (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800589)

I'm interested to see how Microsoft names its proprietary extensions to the Open Document Format.

Re:Great (1, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800809)

The reason they picked ODF 1.1 to emulate rather than ODF 1.2 was specifically so they could do things the opposite way to OpenOffice. e.g. formulas in spreadsheets - 1.1 doesn't specify how to do them, OOo does them a particular way, so MS's ODF export uses ambiguity in the spec to deliberately do it differently. That's the "extend" bit.

Re:Great (5, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800483)

It allows them into markets they were being shut out of in europe. Plus ATM they don't have much to worry about, openoffice is clearly lagging behind and the other OSS suits while strong in some areas are significantly lacking in other. Additionally due to the lack of innovation in office suites it's unlikely that a something will take them away from number #1 spot quickly and they are unlikely to be caught off guard like they were by firefox, if they start seeing a major competitor then they can go back to their old techniques.

So while they opening themselves up to competition, they are so far ahead (in terms of market share and in some senses their product is also superior), that it's worth it in order to not get shut out of certain markets that require open documets.

Its not like this is their first effort to open up there formats either, i think they contributed to apache POI used to stand for "Poor Obfuscation Implementation", but that's not mentioned on their website much anymore ;)) as well. There is also the iso that while not entirely open does force them to be somewhat more open.

In some senses? (4, Insightful)

Shandalar (1152907) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800765)

Regular users of Office 2007 and OpenOffice know that Office 2007 isn't merely superior "in some senses". It's in almost every sense, as long as you have a relatively modern computer.

Re:Great (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800623)

Look at it from the other side.
Maybe they think this will let them put their foot in some doorway otherwise slapped on them.

Re:Great (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800701)

Some people are receiving documents created in OpenOffice. Microsoft would like to have these people open those documents in Microsoft Office rather than download OpenOffice to open them. Otherwise, the next thing you know, people might actually use OpenOffice to create new documents. Ugh! This FOSS stuff spreads just like a virus!

swine flu bukakke (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800289)

Coming to PC near you.

(ick)

Outlook not so good... (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800237)

Office SP2 seems to have speeded performance on my machine, but the Outlook junk mail filter is nuts -- it swept up 10 or 12 senders I've been getting for years with no issues in Outlook or Gmail. To compound the problem, Outlook still doesn't automatically move a junk message to Inbox after you click "Add to safe senders list". I can't understand why I have to go through two procedures to move a "safe sender" from junk to inbox.

=Smidge=

Re:Outlook not so good... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800467)

The outlook junk filter has always been nuts. It still filters even when you disable the damn thing.

Re:Outlook not so good... (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800505)

To compound the problem, Outlook still doesn't automatically move a junk message to Inbox after you click "Add to safe senders list". I can't understand why I have to go through two procedures to move a "safe sender" from junk to inbox.

However, if you use the "this is not junk" option, there is a checkbox to add the sender to the safe list. This saves a few clicks.

I don't understand either why the two procedures are separate. It's very unlikely you'd want to accept only one specific mail from a sender.

Slashdot is turning into Windows Update (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800255)

IE8, Office 2007 SP2. Only difference is that it works in Firefox.

funny (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800271)

one of the few funny comments on slashdot, bravo.

Re:Slashdot is turning into Windows Update (3, Funny)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800525)

It also doubles as a Linux update manager as well. Remember when Ubuntu 9.04 was released? :)

legacy Office 97-2007 formats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800263)

It supports office documents all the way back to the Roman Empire? Cool.

As always, Microsoft coming late (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800265)

April 1st was more than a month ago.

Re:As always, Microsoft coming late (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800801)

Yea and they don't let us just swallow. It has to get all over the place.

Great (5, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800285)

Office 2007 has been a very stable and good version from the start. At my department, in the university I work for, experienced users (like our two secretaries) had some difficulties at first re-learning the new user interface, before they, after some weeks realized what a great invention the ribbon is. Yes, you need to think different here. Forget menus and toolbars. The ribbon is a great thing when you understand that they are somehow like toolbars, but they are dynamic as well. When you realize how the thing work, then you cannot live without it.

Now having PDF as a "native" option (and , as a minor option, odf as well) without installing extra software , this is a real winner. Good work.

Re:Great (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800311)

I want my screen real-estate back I am missing 1/3 of my screen to that ridiculous ribbon bar?

Good God! when office 2030 comes along my documents will look like twitters....

Re:Great (3, Insightful)

Filip22012005 (852281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800327)

double-click the ribbon categories. they hide.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800349)

Well, it's not 1992 anymore. Try a resolution higher than 640x480, grandpa.

Re:Great (1)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800817)

good luck with that on a netbook (most of which have 600 pixels of vertical size)

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800867)

It works quite nicely on that resolution though. Just try this step by step guide:

http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_office_word/archive/2009/03/02/word-throwback-just-write-edition1.aspx

Re:Great (3, Insightful)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800329)

I thought it was a nice advancement, but since then switched to OpenOffice at home (being 100% legit with software) and like the simplicity of the menus. It also reduced screen real estate and is easy to add/remove buttons.

M$ made a HUGE mistake not having a 'classic menu' option in Office 2007.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800371)

Perhaps you can explain to me how to do everything in Office 2007 without a mouse? I can't figure out how to do everything. Bits and pieces with shortcuts that I now have to memorize (the menus provided categories I could delve into for lesser-used functions so I didn't have to memorize Shift-DoubleBucky-Meta-Super-Control-K will bring up feature xyz).

Because in previous versions, that's how I worked. That's by choice--I find it much faster not to move my hands off the keyboard.

Re:Great (4, Funny)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800511)

Well, its for their future version of Office, Office 2010 will be MS's version of EMACS! I hear however that Apple's newest version of iWork will be based on VI though, while Oracle since they have taken over Sun will release Star/Open Office where you edit everything using ED.

Re:Great (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800517)

Press alt; it shows a letter for each menu and function. Thus, most functions can activated with a 3 button combination.

This not only makes every function easy to get to via keyboard, it makes memorizing shortcuts unnecssary. Although I assume eventually these shortcuts would become second nature.

Re:Great (0)

hannson (1369413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800645)

Mod parent up!

Re:Great (4, Informative)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800847)

Perhaps you can explain to me how to do everything in Office 2007 without a mouse

You're using windows without a mouse? Ok, whatever.

Press the ALT key. Office 2007 will show you a list of shortcut keys, over every icon visible.

Victory is ours! (4, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800385)

Small as it may seem, a major victory has been won, here.

Ever notice that the price of MS Office exceeds the price of the rest of the computer? Whole swaths of public records stand at risk, tied to a format that's both obsolete and undocumented. But, by commoditizing the document format with open standards, this has the effect of requiring Microsoft to compete on real terms - stability, usability, features, price - rather than by effective lockout through underhanded OEM de3als and shady use of their Monopoly status.

This is a very, very good thing for everybody. (Even Microsoft - if they aren't forced to compete on real terms, they will atrophy and wither, eventually losing their monopoly and going the way of DEC)

As always, the ball's not out of the park yet, we must remain ever vigilant and work to preserve a competitive marketplace....

Re:Great (2, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800397)

You are insane. Office 2007 was a horribly slow, buggy nightmare. SP2 is wonderful, though. Finally, I don't have to deal with Outlook freezing on me for 2+ minutes several times per day.

Office 2007 was crap from the start. Only now is it even usable.

Re:Great (1)

cpotoso (606303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800409)

The ribbon is a horrible feature. Horrible. Takes an enormous amount of real estate on the screen (ok on my 24" monitor, but at home on my 20" it is annoying, and on my 13" laptop it is essentially catastrophic). 2003 was a decent version for comparison, and I still use it (it works faster, takes less screen space, and it is easier to customize). And don't get me started on 2008, that one is really a piece of sh1t...

Re:Great (1)

hannson (1369413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800731)

I disagree. I like the ribbon.

If you double click on the title (i.e. "Home", "Insert") the ribbon auto-hides much like a menu, giving you even more screen real estate than Office 2003

Keyboard shortcuts are very accessible, for example: Press Alt + H to get the home menu with a visual list of access keys.

I can't really say that I share your pain. I find the ribbon very usable and there's no way I'm going back to OpenOffice or Office 2003.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800459)

yeah because we all want you to save in pdfs where you can't select text; the ribbon is awful, why display some stuff when it can all be displayed at the same time? are you kidding me, you call that faster? maybe faster for a noob to get to the buttons, but it's massively confusing and unintuitive to everyone, i have a 1680x1050x2 resolution so i can see whatever I want, not so software has to share my space according to the way they think i use my computer

Re:Great (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800583)

Why can't you select text in a PDF? it works for me...

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800571)

I think you're alone on an island El Lobo. I and everyone I know can't stand the new "functionality" there's NO flexibility - the only place you can "customize" is this little itty bitty bar. It's terrible, nothing is ever available when I need it, the OLE hardly works, the spacing in Word is all funky, there are numerous bugs concerning styles and formatting that were never there before. The only saving grace is Excel because of all the new and actually improved functions and pivot table capability.. of course the 07 pivot tables are not backwards compatible, but we're talking Microsoft here, so that's to be expected. All in all,I give Word and Powerpoint a big fat D-.

Arrgh!! I get frustrated just THINKING about using those piece of crap products!!!

Re:Great (1, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800633)

Yes, you need to think different here. Forget menus and toolbars. The ribbon is a great thing when you understand that they are somehow like toolbars, but they are dynamic as well. When you realize how the thing work, then you cannot live without it.

You really aren't saying anything here. "It's great when you understand it, and then you can't live without it". Why?

I will tell you one thing that is not great about Office 2007 - lack of keyboard shortcuts. There's all sorts of things I used to do in Office 1997-2003 without having to constantly taking my hands off the keyboard to use the mouse. Incidentally, that's why people hated dynamic menus in the first place - it broke all the finger macros. Previously, there was a way to disable them...alas, with the ribbon, you're stuck with it.

Office 2007 is slower the use. End of story as far as I'm concerned. But gosh, maybe I just don't "realize what a great invention" the ribbon is.

Re:Great (1)

NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800653)

Forget menus and toolbars. The ribbon is a great thing when you understand that they are somehow like toolbars, but they are dynamic as well. When you realize how the thing work, then you cannot live without it.

This is a serious question from somebody that's never seen this ribbon thing: What does it do for you that was so hard (or impossible) in previous versions of MS Office or in other word processors?

Re:Great (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800677)

The ribbon is a piece of crap. The interface is cumbersome, non-obvious in several respects.

I mean, what's a home tab?

Re:Great (2, Insightful)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800871)

Forget menus and toolbars.

No. Toolbars and menus worked well. In fact, for every other application out there, they still work well. And they stay out of the way of whatever I'm working on.

Ribbons take up entirely too much space on the screen. I need them to be hidden/minimized/whatever for two reasons: (1) My work, the main thing I'm focusing on, gets more space on the screen and (2) it gives me the illusion that I still have some sort of menu.

When I have a series of words on a bar at the top of my window, I expect them to yield menus, not toolbars, when I click on them. This is how every GUI I have ever known has worked, and I have never once had a problem with it, nor have I ever felt like there was a better way to lay everything out.

Give me one good reason why it was a good idea to use these bastardized toolbars instead of the usual menus and normal toolbars.

Embrace... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800299)

I will not trust this move for a few years, until it is clear that Microsoft is not entering the usual embrace/extend/extinguish cycle. There is a lot of room for that in ODF...

Re:Embrace... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800321)

Good. in the mean time I will continue using it. When your crappy Open Office gets at last loaded, I'm already done with my document. See youuuuu....

Re:Embrace... (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800421)

Starting up the latest version of Ubuntu Linux, logging in and starting up OO.o is faster than starting the latest version of Windows up, without logging in and starting up MSOffice.

While leaving OO.o minimised and running Linux is still faster than Windows without MSOffice running.

In the mean time you can just do whatever you want with Linux, while you have some registry cleaning up, defragging, malware and virusscanning to do.

Then you need to update. Just go ahead with Linux but with Windows you need to restart a couple of times.

After that a Linux user would have written 50 times the amount of documents a Windows user would have written in a week.

See youuuuu....

Re:Embrace... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800639)

Or you could just install OO.o in windows. I normally grab it and install like flash and acrobat reader on all my computers.

Re:Embrace... (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800713)

With Ubuntu you often need to reboot as well. The wonders of the NVIDIA binary driver mean you have to recompile some kernel module every time the driver changes, and seemingly reboot to restart the module. Its not like in the old days where you only need to kill and restart X11.

Re:Embrace... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800717)

Your argument might be relevant if you restart your computer every time you want to open a document. Also your Windows probably loads all sorts of crap when it boots; clean it out and it competes handily with Linux. Also OO is slooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. AbiWord 4 life.

Still not free software. (1, Troll)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800317)

Non-free software will make great progress in satisfying the technical needs of its users including adding features introduced by free software. For example, Office 2007 SP2 now supports, in some form, ODF. The fact that it isn't free software still remains a liability when it comes to user freedom and to software progress in general.

Does your support of free software end when non-free software has the features you've come to enjoy?

Re:Still not free software. (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800475)

The reason this is news is that you no longer have the problem of using Open Office and saving in .doc format and then having things not display right on a Windows system running MS Office due to different fonts. This makes it much easier to use Open Office in the business world without having to worry if the document will display wrong when someone at another firm opens the file.

Re:Still not free software. (1)

drizek (1481461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800495)

ODF isn't a "feature". It is the Freedom part of OpenOffice. If MS gives me that, then I will use their product when I am on Windows, and I will use the now compatible open source office suites on Linux and Mac OS.

Re:Still not free software. (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800507)

Far from it. But at least now I can send collaborative documents in their native ODF instead of having to convert them to the binary formats first.

Should install MsOffice 2007 (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800323)

Like AcidTest for browsers, is there a standard test that will test the export/import compliance with standards for the Office documents? Mod me paranoid, but I am worried Microsoft will implement ODF export/import deliberately in a buggy way to damage the reputation of the ODF format.

Re:Should install MsOffice 2007 (4, Informative)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800387)

We definitely need this AcidTest for ODF rendering. I just ran across this post that highlights a few potential problems in Microsoft's implementation: http://www.archivum.info/comp.os.linux.advocacy/2008-08/msg00757.html [archivum.info]

Re:Should install MsOffice 2007 (4, Insightful)

UltraAyla (828879) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800443)

I'm no MS Fanboy, but that post actually highlights Microsofts strength of implementation. It sounds like Oo.org is the one that has some problems in their implementation that only show up when importing a strictly made document. Hopefully this will be pressure to fix the workarounds they have in place so that true interoperability is possible.

Re:Should install MsOffice 2007 (2, Insightful)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800399)

I would say open it in OOo, but since that can open MSdoc files that MS Office can't, it's probably not the best yardstick.

I need CrossOver compatibility (1)

Britz (170620) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800333)

After MS Office 2007 SP1 was never compatible to CrossOver I hope SP2 will get that soon. The shop I am working for only uses Microsoft Office 2007. They are trained to use it. OpenOffice will not work, because they would need retraining. But I need to maintain their computers. And it would so much easier to do if I could just switch them over to Linux. I also need the Service Pack, because without it the mailboxes in Outlook 2007 are limited to 2GB. Those people send and receive large Powerpoint presentations on a daily bases. They also keep those mails for reference. Some of their mailboxes are about 4GB and growing.

http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/group/?app_id=5133 [codeweavers.com]

Re:I need CrossOver compatibility (1)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800547)

I second that! I just got the student version of Office 2007 and it runs great under Crossover, in fact Office 2007 under Wine is using slightly less memory than native Open Office... just goes to show where the real bloat is. Anyway, having SP2 support would be awesome and would go a long way towards letting me use Open Office when I want to, and MS Office when I have to, with fewer headaches.

Open Office (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800355)

So, in all seriousness, now, aside from price (free, unless you count 'retraining) - what need for OpenOffice?

Re:Open Office (2, Insightful)

zlogic (892404) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800393)

It runs on Linux?
Retraining will be needed only once while every new version of Office will cost something like $400. If a few clients upgrade to a new version of Office and send you stuff in an incompatible format you'll be forced to upgrade.

Re:Open Office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800411)

"Aside from price"

WELL ASIDE FROM THE GOOD REASONS WHY DO WE NEED IT??

Well, it's open-source. Which is why it runs on Linux.
I'm not moving to Windows just so I can buy an office suite that does all the stuff mine already does.

Also, it uses a regular menu. I still don't understand the ribbon. They just re-arranged everything and replaced it with cryptic-ass icons.

Re:Open Office (1)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800447)

Open Office is free software which respects you as the user so that if you have a problem you can fix it yourself. You are also free to use the software for whatever purpose you choose and to carry the torch in your own direction should Microsoft not agree with your ideas for improvement or not want to fix a bug that's hanging you up.

Re:Open Office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800463)

You need more retraining for MS office 2007...

Re:Open Office (1)

mongolian (768610) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800491)

The other sense of 'free' is important too.

Re:Open Office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800673)

Well, what use has there been for MS Office for the past years, and what use is there beyond this point? Bragging rights?

Re:Open Office (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800785)

So, in all seriousness, now, aside from price - what need for OpenOffice?

I have little need for office suites. Text is sufficient for most documents I'm not sharing with anyone else. For people like myself, OpenOffice is overkill*. Why should I waste my employer's money (or my own, at home) on MS Office? Now that ODF is supported, all documents should interoperate just fine (theoretically).

*My 'Documents' folder contains a handful of old ODF files I can get rid of (including an essay I let a family member type at my machine), 2 that I'll keep (my resume, and a letter I am typing to my congresscritter), about 2 dozen PDFs I have downloaded, and a dozen text files.

What caused Adobe to back off? (4, Interesting)

dirk (87083) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800375)

Save as PDF was supposed to be a feature in Office from the beginning, but Adobe objected (legally) and forced them to pull it, so MS offered it as a separate download. I wonder why Adobe decided to drop their objection to MS putting this is Office.

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (1)

drizek (1481461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800457)

Probably because they didn't want to lose out to the XPS format from MS. The XPS viewer is installed by default in Windows 7, making it more practical to use than having to download Adobes reader and the PDF plugin for Office.

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (1)

unfunk (804468) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800503)

now, if only they'd let them export to PDF from any Windows app. I wonder why Apple can get away with it, but Microsoft can't?

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800469)

"Formerly a proprietary format, PDF was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO 32000-1:2008."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800625)

Informative? Maybe, but irrelevant. PDF was only ever semi-proprietary. Adobe controlled it, but the spec was freely available and could be implemented by anyone, royalty-free. Adobe's complaint was not that they implemented PDF support, it was that they did something Adobe's software did (convert Word documents to PDF) and bundled it with a product that had an effective monopoly in the market (MS Office). It was an antitrust complaint, not a copyright/patent infringement case.

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (1)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800485)

This may have something to do with recent attacks on Adobe's Reader. People are switching to alternatives that can read PDFs and don't leave them vulnerable to such attacks. So Adobe may be moving from an application domination strategy to a file format domination strategy. Such a strategy would allow and even encourage all applications to support PDF as fully as possible. Another reason may be seeing as how Open Office has has this feature for a while, the legal argument you vaguely refer to may no longer be valid(if it ever was).

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800671)

This may have something to do with recent attacks on Adobe's Reader. People are switching to alternatives that can read PDFs and don't leave them vulnerable to such attacks. So Adobe may be moving from an application domination strategy to a file format domination strategy. Such a strategy would allow and even encourage all applications to support PDF as fully as possible. Another reason may be seeing as how Open Office has has this feature for a while, the legal argument you vaguely refer to may no longer be valid(if it ever was).

These are all silly speculations.

  • This change was obviously in the works long before the recent spate of Adobe Reader problems. Service Packs of this size take months to put together and test.
  • PDF was recognized as an ISO standard in July 2008. I think that had a lot more to do with it.
  • Hence, Microsoft has no problems implementing it, with or without Adobe's consent. Adobe was not a factor in this decision.

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800497)

My best guess as to why Adobe stopped objecting? Someone from MS stopped by and handed them a check with a lot of zeroes.

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (1)

omz13 (882548) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800515)

The format for PDF is an open standard, and anybody can implement it (and it says so in the PDF specs)... so I wonder how Adobe could object legally? I guess they are just afraid of loosing sales of Acrobat Pro, which has been getting prohibitively more expensive with each release (and each release itself hasn't exactly been a compelling upgrade).

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (2, Informative)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800595)

Why anyone would throw down hundreds of dollars for Acrobat when they can get the same functionality from other software is beyond me.

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800689)

If I recall correctly, it was an antitrust complaint: Adobe was complaining that Microsoft was leveraging their Office monopoly to undercut Acrobat Pro with a free workalike. Similar to the complaint Netscape made about Microsoft giving away IE with Windows.

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (1)

MeanMF (631837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800537)

Maybe they figure that SP2 is still technically a separate download....

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800555)

Adobe: Remove "Save as PDF"
Microsoft: Sure would be terrible if something happened to Photoshop in the next update.

Re:What caused Adobe to back off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800703)

PDF is a public spec, anyone can code for it. Adobe shit their pants when MS offered it because MS is a monopoly, and once MS had PDF generation built in, like every other OS has had for many years, there'd be no market for Adobe Craprobat PDF junk.

The deal with MS was to push their image suite harder on the windows platform than their regular Apple-fest. Adobe gets to make big fat profit, and MS laughs while Adobe piss-off Steve Jobs. It was win-win and MS didn't actually have to do anything, just spend a few weeks coding something up, which in reality was nabbed from a BSD application.

Feature request: Make ribbon optional (3, Insightful)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800429)

I am the type of user who types it first, then makes it pretty. Too often in the past going back to WordPerfect5.1 for DOS days, the darned program would try to guess what I wanted to do next and force different styles on me. i.e. bullet points.

Having to stop what I am doing and FIX the errors that computer has made is complete regression in UI design, and 10+ years later they still have not learnt.

So now all of my data input happens in nano. I use OO as needed, as opposed to more regularly.

Re:Feature request: Make ribbon optional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800629)

Why not just use LaTeX?

Re:Feature request: Make ribbon optional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800657)

I am the type of user who types it first, then makes it pretty. Too often in the past going back to WordPerfect5.1 for DOS days, the darned program would try to guess what I wanted to do next and force different styles on me. i.e. bullet points.

Having to stop what I am doing and FIX the errors that computer has made is complete regression in UI design, and 10+ years later they still have not learnt.

So now all of my data input happens in nano. I use OO as needed, as opposed to more regularly.

Why to use a word processor then? use LyX, LaTeX, ConTeXt or plain TeX and most of the time you spend will be on what you type not how it looks.

Re:Feature request: Make ribbon optional (1)

EvolutionsPeak (913411) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800659)

What the heck does making the ribbon optional have to do with inaccurate prediction? The kind of prediction you're talking about will be the same with or without the ribbon.

Re:Feature request: Make ribbon optional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800721)

The ribbon has nothing to do with turning off auto-correct and auto-format.

Re:Feature request: Make ribbon optional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800767)

It is trivial to do that in Word 2007. Most users (like you) are either too lazy to learn anything new or are just clueless. If you cannot figure it out on your own, try this step by step guide:

http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_office_word/archive/2009/03/02/word-throwback-just-write-edition1.aspx

If it is too difficult for you to follow those instructions then yeah, stick with nano.

Step 1. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800567)

This is MS's step 1:
Embrace.

Anybody know what the other two are?

OpenDocument support (1, Informative)

robmv (855035) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800649)

Just to clarify, SP2 adds support for OpenDocument Text, not all OpenDocument, no spreadsheets, no presentations, etc. etc. It is a good step, but everyone must know it, if not MS will just say "we support OpenDocument" to all institutions and countries that requires ODF support.

Re:OpenDocument support - Wrong (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800861)

How the shit did you get modded +2 Insightful? You're completely wrong. MS Office 2007 SP2 adds ODF support to Word, Excel and PowerPoint to read and write ODT, ODS and ODP respectively.

PDF Support (1)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800753)

Well it's about fucking time.

Not a good start (1)

martin-k (99343) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800815)

>> it includes the earlier-promised support for ODF text documents ...

And boy does it suck at that. We tried it out, and it is extremely unimpressive. Tracked changes are gone when you save to ODT, nested tables from ODT often lose their text, and object positioning is often wrong. Generally speaking, anything more than simple letters requires manual intervention.

Did they just repurpose the open source converter they commissioned? It certainly is the worst filter I've seen from Microsoft in a long time.

ODF 1.x? (0)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27800853)

Which version of ODF? 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2?
I am assuming 1.0 because that is the officially sanctioned standard.

The format OpenOffice uses can be adjusted in Tools>>Options>>Load/Save>>General

fNailz0rs (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27800869)

NIGGER ASSOCIATION
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>