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 Promises To Fully Support OOXML ... Later

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the sounds-like-a-government-timetable dept.

Microsoft 163

Raul654 writes "OOXML is the Word document format that Microsoft rammed through the ISO last year. Last week, we discussed a blog post by Alex Brown, who was instrumental in getting OOXML approved by the ISO. Brown criticized Microsoft for reneging on its promise to support OOXML in the upcoming release of Office 2010, and for its lackadaisical approach to fixing the many bugs which still remain in the specification. Now, Doug Mahugh has responded to Brown's post, promising that Microsoft will support OOXML 'no later than the initial release of Office 15.'"

cancel ×

163 comments

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

Office...15? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792836)

Uh...is that a typo or something? Office FIFTEEN???

Re:Office...15? (4, Informative)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792892)

Office 14 is Office 2010.

So, Office 15 will be the version after 2010.

Re:Office...15? (2)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793094)

Ah, the version number thing (as pointed out by other posters in reply to my OP.) Thanks for the clarification!

Re:Office...15? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31793114)

Hmmm let's see...

- Office 97
- Office 2000
- Office 2003
- Office 2007
- Office 2010
So probably in office 2013 or 2014 they will have support... if anyone still cares by then.

Re:Office...15? (2, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793184)

Maybe.

I'm sure that's the rational answer.

That's also what THEY WANT YOU TO THINK!

He really means Office '15, which comes out some time in 2017.

But if you assume he means the next major release, and that assumption pacifies you, all the better.

Re:Office...15? (4, Insightful)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793246)

Ok, then. They'll support it on the next version, just what they promissed by 2007.

Re:Office...15? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793248)

I admit I misunderstood this too. However, how often are versions changed in this sense? From what I see, Office 13 was skipped, so the last version was Office 12, AKA office 2007.

If they say "We'll support it in office 15" but skip to office 16, what happens to support? Given that office 2007 took 3 years, doesn't that mean at a minimum it will be no less than 3 years from now before they're compliant with what they agreed in *2008* (OOXML)?

Re:Office...15? (1)

anthonyfk (1394881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793440)

They skipped 13 for superstitious reasons. Just like floor numbers in a building.

Re:Office...15? (3, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794296)

Yes, but even if they do office 15 next, we're still looking at an easy 3+ years. The stuff from now won't even be relevant by then, enabling things to still be undocumented and not compatible.

Re:Office...15? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31793302)

Office 14 is Office 2010.

So, Office 15 will be the version after 2010.

And we should believe them WHY, exactly?

Re:Office...15? (1)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793394)

You sure? Office 2007 is office 12. Unless they are refering to office 2008 for the mac as office 13. But I don't think they are. Office 11 was office 2003, not 2004, and office 10 was office xp / 2002. I mess with this stuff on a daily basis. So unless Microsoft has taken to numbering their mac releases, or unless they are skipping 13 due to some superstition, Office 2010 is Office 13, not 14. So, with Microsoft releasing products every 3-4 years in the Office category, this means that we can expect OOXML support around 2016 / 2017.

Re:Office...15? (1, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793686)

You forgot about the inevitable Office 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.95, 14.96, ...

Then they'll get all George Lucas and go directly to Office 20. and tell us they'll go back to do office 15 later.

But in the sense that the year 3520 is after 2010, yes, office 15 will be after office 2010.

Re:Office...15? (1)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794718)

What he actually said is they will support it in version (current + 1). This was interpreted as version 15. When version 15 is out, it will be supported in version 16. And so on...

Re:Office...15? (2, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792896)

Word 2007 can save in ODT though. Hah. Even Microsoft cannot make file import/export filters for their own OOXML format.

Re:Office...15? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31793052)

Office for Mac can not either save or read ODT. No ODT plugins or converters available.

Re:Office...15? (0, Troll)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795006)

The parent said:

Word 2007 can save in ODT

You said:

Office for Mac can not either save or read ODT.

There is no Word 2007 for Mac (only 2008), so these actually do not contradict. Hmm... I should probably go work for Microsoft... :-P

Re:Office...15? (2, Informative)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792906)

2003 is Office 11. 2007 is 12, 2010 is 14. So 15 is the next release after this one... Here's to waiting 3+ years for support... Maybe...

Re:Office...15? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792912)

Where's Office 13?

Re:Office...15? (2, Interesting)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792934)

Skipped due to superstition... Or at least that's what WikiPedia claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office#Microsoft_Windows_versions [wikipedia.org]

Re:Office...15? (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793144)

One must not trust its own product to fall for this kind of poor superstition...

Re:Office...15? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793814)

By that logic many builders didn't trust their buildings as they omit a 13th floor as well.

Re:Office...15? (1)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795112)

Omitting a 13th floor can be very unlucky. From this article [bungeezone.com] :

There were, I think 4 people at the top of a building (two guys and two girls). They decided to celebrate something, I think that it was graduation. They constructed the bungee cord secured it to both the building and the guy. They wanted to make the cord long enough so they could touch the ground. They figured that each floor was about 10 feet and they got off at the top floor which, was something like 17 or so. The guy jumped and hit the ground. They forgot that the building doesn't have a 13th floor and thus the cord was about 10 feet too long.

This guy says "I think" way too much for this to be taken as fact, but it definitely could have happened. Also, even if they hadn't omitted the 13th floor, I think that if you "figured that each floor was about 10 feet" that alone could cause this event to occur.

Re:Office...15? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795442)

If the customers fall for the superstition, it will be self-fulfilling. Customers would avoid version 13, and so MS would seem to have bad luck in the form of poor sales.

Re:Office...15? (2, Funny)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793210)

So, when they release the next version without OOXML support they will retroactvely renumber so that the next version is still only Office 14 and hope that by the time they get to the 14th release of Office everyone will have forgotten this promise (or that the push for open standards will have run out of steam).

The real story. (5, Funny)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793306)

Office 13 existed as a skunkworks project within MS. It fully supported the ODF 1.1 standard, and was crossplatform to Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, and BeOS (which MS also had plans to revive). It had clean, standards compliant HTML output. Even more surprisingly, it was decided that the project would be released as open source. Everything was going great until orders from the top led them to try and include Clippy. During the initial commit of the Office 2007 Clippy source there was a large bitsplosion leaving the GIT repository in waste. Forensic analysis concluded that the disaster was the result of the collision of evil bits and non-evil bits, which annihilated one another on contact, releasing huge reserves of pure information, scrambling anything in proximity. Furthermore, due to quantum entanglement, all backup copies of the promising office suite also disappeared, along with any instances of Clippy in Office 2007.

After this incident, MS abandoned any attempts at supporting open source and open standards projects. Ms Gates still bitches about the loss of Clippy in Office 2010.

Re:The real story. (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793412)

All great humor is rooted in truth.

Re:The real story. (1)

ryantmer (1748734) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793414)

You, sir, made me laugh rather loudly at work. Let the suspicious glares of co-workers begin...

Re:The real story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31793432)

Not quite accurate. There really never was any Office 13, or cross-platform Office port, and Office doesn't use GIT.

The quantum entanglement thing is correct, though.

Re:Office...15? (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792972)

Apparently it's the release after the next one, tentatively planned for 2013.

How they get to 15: They used version numbers through 4.x. Then somehow 5.x and 6.x were skipped (?) in the switch to year branding, and Office 95 was internally Office 7.0. Then it went sequentially for a bit: Office 97 was 8.0, Office 2000 was 9.0, Office XP was 10.0, Office 2003 was 11.0, and the current Office 2007 is 12.0.

Now they plan to skip 13 due to its negative superstition, and make Office 2010 be 14.0. Then the release after that, around 2013, will go back to non-year version numbers, and be Office 15.

Re:Office...15? (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793180)

I can't speak for 5, but I definitely have Word 6 for Windows (3.1) on floppy set.

Re:Office...15? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795022)

Office 4.x was the last of the 16bit versions consisting of Word 6.0, Excel 5.0, Access 2.0 and Powerpoint 4.0
Word went from V2.0 in Office 3.0 to V6.0 in 4.x just because WordPerfect released V6 at roughly the same time.

So Office 95 (V7.0 internally) actually was a logical progression if you consider that at the time the most important/visible part of Office was Word.

Re:Office...15? (1)

Chaset (552418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793574)

My understanding was that they skipped 5 to sync up version numbering between Mac and Windows versions. Word for Mac was already at version 5 (many swear this was/is the best version of Word for Mac, ever.) when they released version 6. They made the Windows version 6 as well. It was also supposed to emphasize tighter compatibility between the two (they started using the same file format from version 6.)
Unfortunately, Word 6 for Mac was a steaming pile of bloated code. Computers that would run Word 5 snappily would choke on Word 6. PowerMacs, which were still considered "fast" at the time would slow to a crawl running Word 6. Microsoft redeemed themselves with Office 98 for Mac, which was much better software.

Re:Office...15? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31793828)

Apparently it's the release after the next one, tentatively planned for 2013.

God, one night, summoned in heaven the presidents of USA, China and Bill Gates, and declared that the world would end in 2012 (thus confirming the so called mayan profecies). They were returned them to their homes to give news to the people.

The president of USA said: "There are good and bad news. The good news is that God exists. The bad news is that the world will end in 2012".

The president of China said: "There are bad and terrible news. The bad news is that God exists. The terrible news is that the world will end in 2012".

Bill Gates said: "There are good and terrific news. The good news is that God thinks I'm important. The terrific news is that we don't have to worry about OOXML!"

Re:Office...15? (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794270)

>>>somehow 5.x and 6.x were skipped (?) in the switch to year branding

According to wikpedia: "Microsoft Office 4.0 was released containing Word 6.0, Excel 5.0, PowerPoint 4.0". Then Word was incremented to 7.0, and the Office Suite was unified around Word 7.0, and they all took-on that "7.0" as their number. (Probably to avoid confusing users.)

- This seems to be modus operandi for Microsoft.
Windows NT 1.0 became 3.1 for the initial release.
Windows NT 6.1 is called "seven" (or is it Mojave?).

Re:Office...15? (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793732)

Yeah, you know - 13, 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3 ... 14.9, 14.91, 14.92, ... 14.99, 14.991 ... ... ... 15!

Re:Office...15? (2, Funny)

ffreeloader (1105115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795192)

Yeah, it's correct. It's not a typo. It's MS's internal code for a future release called "When pigs fly".

No it's not. (4, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792942)

OOXML is the word document format that Microsoft

No it's not. It's the document format for representing all supported document types within the Office suite.

Yeah, OK, we all know what he's talking about. But still... is it really that hard to get the basics right in a summary?

Re:No it's not. (4, Insightful)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793120)

And, no, it's not the document format for representing all supported document types within the Office suite.

If it was, then it would have already been implemented *and supported* in Microsoft Office.

Microsoft just wanted to get OOXML an ISO stamp of approval, so it could say that it's products conformed to international standards when quotes for potential purchases required such a thing. Of course, in hind sight, it was all a lie, Microsoft never did support the ISO approved OOXML standard, and never intended to. And that's a realted but slightly different story.

Re:No it's not. (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793182)

And, of course, we're all shocked that MS would do such a thing. All they really did was slap the ISO across the face and walk away laughing.

The whole process was bought and paid for. I don't even know why MS really did it. They don't market their ISO approval, nor that their products conform to any international standard. Why did they bother doing this?

Re:No it's not. (5, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793256)

You have to realize the biggest client for Microsoft is the government. Governments like standards compliance, even if the standards themselves do not mean a damn.

Re:No it's not. (4, Insightful)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793322)

Ok, that old story... ODF does have ISO approval, and governemnts around the world were trying to require open office (lower case "o" here) suites by requiring ISO approval of their document format. Then, MS got into a delay and destroy tatic that consisted on making a lot of confusion about what does or does not have ISO approval, and on the sideline continuing their usual way of gaining governement bids (that is composed of bribes, lock-in and blackmail). Now, their task is done, but everything would start again if they just recognized that they'll never support OOXML, so they must keep the fuzz alive.

Re:No it's not. (0)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794638)

Of course ODF 1.0 is now out of date, and there has been no attempt to submit 1.1. They may submit 1.2 when it's ratified, but that could be several years yet before approval. Nobody writes ODF 1.0 documents anymore, not even OpenOffice.

Re:No it's not. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795766)

And, no, it's not the document format for representing all supported document types within the Office suite.

If it was, then it would have already been implemented *and supported* in Microsoft Office.

If you RTFA, you'll see that MSOffice claims support for OOXML Transitional (which is still a conformance level in ISO spec). It's OOXML Strict that's elusive so far.

I 3 Alex Brown (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792948)

*Alex brown shakes his fist at MS* "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"

Re:I 3 Alex Brown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31793110)

Bill Gates: "Ahahaaa! Mine is an evil laugh!"

Morale of the story: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31792950)

Implement first, standardize later.

I'm still amazed how many times people shoot themselves in the foot by trying to do it backwards.

Re:Morale of the story: (1)

Fluffy Bunnies (1055208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794984)

They did implement first. ISO just didn't agree to standardize the existing implementation as is.

This is why I love Microsoft (4, Funny)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31792996)

All of my software bugs get fixed in the "next" version.

Re:This is why I love Microsoft (3, Funny)

l0perb0y (324046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795238)

And in open source projects all the bugs are already fixed in Subversion!

There is no Office 13 - But Why? (1, Offtopic)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793020)

There is no Office 13 - But Why? [msdn.com] – a video produced by Microsft on MSDN Channel 9 – explains why there is no Office 13.

As the old saying goes. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793038)

I will gladly support your standards on Tuesday for the 'standards compliant' checkbox I need to continue my lucrative market dominance today...

Re:As the old saying goes. (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793304)

Other than the mustache, the resemblance between Steve Ballmer and J. Wellington Wimpy [weirdspace.dk] is uncanny.

They promised to support OS2 too (5, Insightful)

demigod (20497) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793082)

And Microsoft promised to support OS/2 after it sold 2 million copies.

Never happened.

Re:They promised to support OS2 too (2, Funny)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793148)

Which part? :p

Re:They promised to support OS2 too (1)

steveha (103154) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794066)

And Microsoft promised to support OS/2 after it sold 2 million copies.

Never happened.

Could you provide us with some sort of reference to support this?

The way I remember it, Microsoft supported OS/2 from the beginning; see here [prodigy.net] for screen shots of Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel for OS/2.

At the time, Microsoft had an OS/2 group, and a Windows group, and both groups were trying to get people to write apps for their respective systems. Microsoft was telling people that if their computers had 2MB of RAM or less, they should run Windows, but if they had more than that, they should run OS/2, because it was the future.

Then, in 1990, Windows 3.0 shipped, and it was a runaway smash success; at that time Microsoft decided to throw their weight behind Windows. They cut their famous deal with IBM, where IBM would keep the OS/2 business and support the OS/2 customers, and Microsoft would go its own way with Windows. From that point on, I am not aware of any promises from Microsoft with respect to OS/2: Microsoft was pushing Windows with both hands.

So, if you know something I don't, please provide a link so I can read up on it. Thanks.

steveha

Re:They promised to support OS2 too (1)

Uncle Warthog (311922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795468)

The way I remember it, Microsoft supported OS/2 from the beginning; see here [prodigy.net] for screen shots of Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel for OS/2.

Yup. I seem to remember seeing that. The other big "supported" application on OS/2 was Microsoft Mail (anyone else remember that one? Try not to shudder too hard....). At least it beat trying to run it under DOS/Windows.

So the obvious step would be... (1)

mutantSushi (950662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793084)

So since the promises under which premise the 'standard' was adopted have utterly been not met, Shouldn't the committee revoking their approval of OOXML as a "Standard"? Of course, that puts MS back in the hotseat of no longer offering a "Open Standard" compliant product for governments, etc which REQUIRE such "Open Standard" functionality.... Meaning MS either makes ODF standard or gives up these markets. :-)

Re:So the obvious step would be... (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795050)

They will implement it, and make it about as useful as the POSIX support in Windows NT...

Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (4, Funny)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793106)

Wow. I can't believe that MS wasted three years and $millions on this. MS really needs to take a look at what is going on and do something about it:

* MS Tablet PCs fail
* Windows Mobile fails
* MS ISO Standard file format fails
* Windows Live fails
* Zune fails

The bodies are getting stacked deep, there MS. Time to get back to what made you great and become hacker friendly again... and not in the sense that your OS and software have lots of security holes.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793212)

Wow. I can't believe that MS wasted three years and $millions on this. MS really needs to take a look at what is going on and do something about it:

* MS Tablet PCs fail
* Windows Mobile fails
* MS ISO Standard file format fails
* Windows Live fails
* Zune fails

The bodies are getting stacked deep, there MS. Time to get back to what made you great and become hacker friendly again... and not in the sense that your OS and software have lots of security holes.

Nobody looks forward to using Microsoft products. They use them because they have to. Even if you think that all the hype around Apple products is just advertising brainwashing and the fans are just drooling zombies, here's a thought: Microsoft has even more money to spend on branding and they can't even manage to inspire lukewarm enthusiasm.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (2, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793318)

Nobody looks forward to using Microsoft products. They use them because they have to. Even if you think that all the hype around Apple products is just advertising brainwashing and the fans are just drooling zombies, here's a thought: Microsoft has even more money to spend on branding and they can't even manage to inspire lukewarm enthusiasm.

The Xbox 360 seems to be the one exception. What's really surprising is that people keep going back to it even after their 360 breaks.

I suppose they have a vested interest due to their game libraries.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793786)

The Xbox 360 seems to be the one exception. What's really surprising is that people keep going back to it even after their 360 breaks.

I suppose they have a vested interest due to their game libraries.

Interesting observation. But I think it's because the games are there any Sony screwed the pooch on the PS3. The PS2 beat the pants out of the Xbox 1 hands down. But when the PS3 came in so expensive and with the Wii seemingly so underpowered, console gamers were stuck with the 360 as default. But I don't think there's anything compelling about the Microsoft experience, anything that would make people want to stay. I happen to have a 360. I got it to play games on my HDTV I'd just picked up, my way of celebrating the retirement of a 15 yr old 27" tube. Overall, the 360 experience is a mixed bag. The games are fun but the hardware had massive teething problems and with all the bells and whistles cost as much as a midrange computer.

In my opinion, the Xbox is about like the PC. People kept their PC's for years while bitching about Microsoft. Why? No good games on Linux. People want their games. The 360 wasn't great but it had games.

We'll have to wait for the next generation of consoles to see what people will do but if the PS4 can manage to not suck, I don't think the Xbox 720 or whatever the fuck they call it will do as well. And remember, Microsoft is still massively in the hole on the console front. I don't think they've even yet broke even on their investment here, going all the way back to the first dollar spent on Xbox development. The Xbox is still a loss leader with the goal of giving Microsoft a foothold in the entertainment center.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794028)

It could be because the Xbox 360 is better than its competitor, the PS3? (I consider the Wii mostly in a different market.)

Or, phrased more Slashdotterily, Sony screwed up the PS3 much more than Microsoft screwed up the Xbox 360.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794560)

I suppose they have a vested interest due to their game libraries.

Behold the power of vendor lock-in.

What we talking about again? Oh, yeah. Microsoft and OOXML.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (2, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794928)

People go back to MS products even after being burned time and time again, because they're locked in... The 360 is no different really.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795636)

But the Xbox project only really shows you can accomplish a lot if you don't mind throwing tons of money at the problem. The Xbox division has had a few quarters of profitability among years of loss. At this rate, it would take a decade to recoup the initial investment.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31793462)

Wow. I can't believe that MS wasted three years and $millions on this. MS really needs to take a look at what is going on and do something about it:

* MS Tablet PCs fail
* Windows Mobile fails
* MS ISO Standard file format fails
* Windows Live fails
* Zune fails

The bodies are getting stacked deep, there MS. Time to get back to what made you great and become hacker friendly again... and not in the sense that your OS and software have lots of security holes.

Nobody looks forward to using Microsoft products. They use them because they have to. Even if you think that all the hype around Apple products is just advertising brainwashing and the fans are just drooling zombies, here's a thought: Microsoft has even more money to spend on branding and they can't even manage to inspire lukewarm enthusiasm.

Sure they do.

Wanting to run away from Microsoft products as fast as possible is certainly enthusiasm.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (1)

nhytefall (1415959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793996)

If we were discussing Vista or ME, I agree with you wholeheartedly. After playing with Win7, my opinion has changed, to the point where instead of running Windows in a VM with a base of Linux, I am running Win7 as the base, and Linux in the VM.

Wireless support is better in Win7 than in Lucid, hibernation/sleep is better, UI is better, and it doesn't choke on my hardware. Win/Win/Win, I say.

Plus... Office2K7 is a much better suite (IMHO) than OOo 3. Faster performance, better stability, and cross platform compatibility.

As with such things, my experience may not be the same as yours, however, I am only speaking from my experience, and am not trying to be a fanboi of either Linus OR MS.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794982)

Cross platform compatibility? msoffice? Clearly a troll...
They have a windows version, and a half assed mac version with poor compatibility, and nothing else... OOo runs on linux (multiple architectures), windows, mac, solaris (both x86 and sparc), and possibly other unix systems aswell.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (2, Funny)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794310)

Speak for yourself, but myself and other do enjoy using MS projects. For me, actually trying to use Linux made me enjoy MS software (it helped that MS did actually improve their stuff too).

In my opinion MS sometimes fails on purpose (1)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793416)

A truly open XML-based file format would result in a level playing field. Without the shell game of Office file formats, businesses would be quick to dump MS Office and pocket the savings. So instead, MS can play "delay and deny" in an action to thwart open document long enough for people to forget about it. Look at the great job they did screwing up IMAP in Outlook, long enough for them to push their own proprietary IMAP-style technology in Exchange.

MS is the Verizon of software. Features that don't fit the business model are to be crippled in such a way that nobody wants them.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793458)

I've found Windows Live Mail to be a very good mail client. How exactly has it failed? Its light years better than the old Outlook Express it replaced.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo (0, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793556)

I'd argue that Windows live and Zune are not failures. And as for Windows Mobile, while it sucks, they still put it on phones, didn't they?

Careful (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793174)

Microsoft's definition of "support" differs from that of mortals.

It's their own format...... (4, Insightful)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793236)

They're responsible for this abortion of a standard and yet even they can't implement the thing. So much for eating your own dog food. They should be *MADE* to use it or the ISO should simply kill the standard since clearly it can't work.

Re:It's their own format...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31793336)

They're responsible for this abortion of a standard and yet even they can't implement the thing. So much for eating your own dog food. They should be *MADE* to use it or the ISO should simply kill the standard since clearly it can't work.

It's that like how you won't get and Open Office compatible ODF implementation by following the published ODF standard?

Re:It's their own format...... (1)

Fluffy Bunnies (1055208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795132)

Who should "make" them do it? Standards aren't legally binding and standards organizations aren't enforcers. And ISO routinely kill standards when they become obsolete. OOXML is a quite new standard, the industry uses it, and they're working on the next draft so clearly it's not obsolete yet.

For thos who are confused (3, Interesting)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793344)

as to how MS doesnt support their own file format, it because they're using a transitional version instead of the proper "strict" version. Wiki:

On 31st March 2010, Dr Alex Brown, who had been the Convener of the February 2008 Ballot Resolution Meeting, posted an entry on his personal blog[111] in which he complained of Microsoft's lack of progress in adapting current and future versions of Microsoft Office to produce files in the Strict (as opposed to the Transitional) ISO 29500 format:
" On this count Microsoft seems set for failure. In its pre-release form Office(TM) 2010 supports not the approved Strict variant of OOXML, but the very format the global community rejected in September 2007, and subsequently marked as not for use in new documents - the Transitional variant. Microsoft are behaving as if the JTC 1 standardisation process never happened...

Re:For thos who are confused (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794508)

So, what does it mean?

Re:For thos who are confused (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31794538)

Yeah but seriously... it doesn't explain away the CONCEPT that you can invent a standard then just completely not use it. I know it's Microsoft... but still. The CONCEPT is just asinine. No seriously. I don't care what company it is, the whole idea is just lunacy. I know their strategy here: keep everybody aiming for somewhere they're not actually at, to prevent anybody else from being able to properly integrate with Office. I understand that. It's just that on its surface, this whole idea is insanity.

Do I even need to say it? (1)

KGBear (71109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793356)

All they need is to offer the Microsofties a way around the "But ODF is ISO approved" argument. Doesn't need to work or even make sense.

Oh geez (0, Redundant)

flahwho (1243110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793380)

Not this story.... again!!!!

Microsoft and promises? (2, Insightful)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793410)

Doug Mahugh has responded to Brown's post, promising that Microsoft will support OOXML 'no later than the initial release of Office 15.'

When Microsoft follows through with a promise like this, I can't help but lol. How can one of the most rich and powerful software companies in the world not have the resources to do something like this HERE and NOW?

I smell fish - and it's not coming from Ballmer's underwear, for once.

Re:Microsoft and promises? (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793592)

Tthe ISO standard was revised long after Office 2010 had been in development; supporting the changes would have supposedly delayed the release too much.

Office 2010 does support the "transitional" OOXML format, and has read support for the proper ISO OOXML format. source [arstechnica.com]

Re:Microsoft and promises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31794776)

This all flared up because Office 2011 isn't supporting it eaither.

Re:Microsoft and promises? (1)

Fluffy Bunnies (1055208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795186)

No it didn't. Did you even read the previous articles? And besides, Office 2011 is just a Mac port of Office 2010: nobody sane expected it to have new features.

Anyone else see this in the wiki link? (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793470)

"representatives from Microsoft attempted to argue that Sun Microsystems, the creators and supporters of the competing OpenDocument format (ODF), could not be given a seat at the conference table because there was a lack of chairs."

Did anybody notice this sentence (2, Informative)

boogahboogah (310475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793484)

in the first paragraph of Mahugh's blog entry ? That one sentence seems to describe it all...

>>That’s why we’ve been looking into the issues and options for Strict support for quite some time.

Great news! (3, Informative)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793580)

So, the Frankenstein monster is disowned by its creator. Excellent.
Encourage your clients, friends and families to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument [wikipedia.org]
Fully supported by all the major office suites, including of course Oo.

Battle was lost when they named it... (3, Insightful)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793696)

Nobody but boring technogeeks are going to understand the importance of the distinction between "strict OOXML" and "transitional OOXML." It's all very well for Alex Brown to say transitional OOXML was "not the format 'approved by ISO/IEC', it is the format that was rejected," but it sure doesn't _sound_ that way.

It wouldn't even take much dishonesty for a salesperson to say "supports OOXML," and the top-level managers who make the purchasing decisions will nod and smile. What are the chances they will know the importance of asking the question "is that transitional OOXML or strict OOXML?" And any top-level manager, approached by some intense young technogeek, is going to wonder if it's really all that important, and whether transitional OOXML isn't really good enough.

Within Microsoft, how many high-level managers are going to think it is urgently important for Office to support "strict OOXML" rather than "transitional OOXML?"

The battle was probably lost when they allowed those names to be used. Now nobody can ever mention the matter to any lay outsider without prefixing it with a couple of minutes of exposition.

I Don't Care (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793730)

I don't care if Microsoft supports their own format or not. Same goes for every other entity. What I care about is if they will support standards. IIRC, Office 2007 has support for ODF, so that's definitely a step in the right direction. What other formats decides to support beyond the ones that enable interoperability is their own choice.

Re:I Don't Care (4, Funny)

Bryan3000000 (1356999) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794300)

Okay, you got your facts wrong. They pushed OOXML through a standards body to make it a new open standard, ostensibly to address the clamoring for interoperability. So really, it's not that they fail to support their own format, it's that they fail to support the format that they tried to set up as a new standard of interoperability.

In other words, the point is that this kind of proves that Microsoft rammed the OOXML standard through not to help achieve interoperability, but to prevent governments and companies from switching to other standards which truly do provide openness and a greater level of interoperability. It's evidence of further anticompetitive conduct by a company with a functional monopoly.

Re:I Don't Care (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794930)

You are right, of course. Indeed, OOXML has been approved by ISO as a standard. So by my own criterion of "I care about support for standards", Microsoft not supporting it is a big deal.

On the other hand, I have a hard time taking OOXML seriously as a standard. Microsoft have never, as far as I know, released software that actually implemented the specification they pushed, and I am not aware of any plans by anyone else to do so. Knowing what an incredible abomination it is, I am not convinced that there will ever be even a single correct implementation, let alone more than one. In other words, ISO may have approved OOXML as a standard, but they may as well not have, as far as interoperability is concerned.

So I say, OOXML is basically dead in the water as a standard. Which is ok, since we have others that are doing better. Let's put our energy in those. What Microsoft does or doesn't do with OOXML does not really concern me.

Hopefully, that clarifies thinks. Thanks for the correction.

Re:I Don't Care (1)

Fluffy Bunnies (1055208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795542)

No, what Microsoft pushed was what they had already implemented in Office 2007. What they haven't (yet) implemented are the changes ISO made (and continues to make) to the original.

To be pedantic, the original OOXML is also a standard, just not an ISO standard. In addition, it forms a part of the ISO standard: the problem is that it's the legacy part, not the one that new products are supposed to use.

And I promise to fully believe them... (1)

stavrica (701765) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793772)

...when they do.

Laugh out Loud (1)

orsty3001 (1377575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31793942)

I was scrolling down and at first thought it said "Microsoft Promises To Fully Support 'OO-Mox'".

ISO has Fycked ISO far more than US, EU, RU... (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 4 years ago | (#31794428)

If ISO is a corporate standards body, then they are the Industry Standards Organization.

IOW: ISO as an institution has failed the ISO purpose for existence, not the purpose of standards.

ISO relevance in todays world is called into question as a corporate stooge, much like the US Congress, EU Parliament, and RU Kremlin governance bodies.

US, EU, and RU (unlike China) support feudal world governance of Corporate-Socialism and Corporate-Welfare for the entitled elitist of the world.

What ever happened to the French and Russian Revolutions, I know the USA Revolution was bought and paid for with IOU-$-paper.

Re:ISO has Fycked ISO far more than US, EU, RU... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795456)

Psst! Your crazy is showing. But your comment history sure makes for an "interesting" read.

I'm still waiting for IE for Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795070)

And for Microsoft to fix internet security.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?