Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Google Docs Aims At Microsoft Office Live

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the ready-steady-edit dept.

Google 95

mikesd81 writes "Channel News reports that Google took an important step forward Monday in its rivalry with Microsoft Office Live, reporting that Google Docs will allow users to edit word processing documents offline. Google said users of its Google Docs word processing application can use Google Gears to save and then edit documents without being connected to the Internet. 'The offline capability will be limited to word processing documents, though the company plans to add it to spreadsheets and presentations in the future.'"

cancel ×

95 comments

Demo (-1, Offtopic)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930782)

See it in action! [youtube.com]

Has anyone paid attention to Yahoo!s offering? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930900)

They've recently released a beta of their online office suite. [yahoo.com] Called RDS at the moment, still given time I think it could catch up with gApps.

Re:Has anyone paid attention to Yahoo!s offering? (1)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930970)

MOD Down. Link NSFW.

Re:Has anyone paid attention to Yahoo!s offering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930996)

At least rickrolls have some modicum of class and style, even if it is getting older than the stale cheese in your grandma's panties. nimp.org is just disturbing.

Re:Demo (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930976)

Thank the gods for NoScript!

iPhone (0, Offtopic)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930784)

Anyone know if this will work with the iPhone? It _sounds_ like it's a web application that can function even when not connected to the 'net so I could see it working but I'm not a programmer (and at work so I can't test it) so there might be some obvious element I'm missing. If it does work with the iPhone, allow me to say "cool!"

Re:iPhone (3, Informative)

BlueGecko (109058) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930868)

The iPhone does not currently support Google Gears, so the offline portion could not even theoretically work. Thankfully, you're saved from having to worry about that, because you can't currently edit Google Docs on the iPhone when you are connected, either; just view them.

Re:iPhone (5, Informative)

ashground (760276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930898)

Nope. It's built on Google Gears, which is only available for Windows, Mac (FireFox only), and Windows Mobile 5/6.

Re:iPhone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931030)

No Linux? WTF? Surely Google plans something for Linux, no?

---
"And don't call me Shirley!" (Airplane)

Re:iPhone (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931092)

It'll be called OpenOffice.org

Re:iPhone (1)

VagaStorm (691999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934372)

Google docs online atleast works beutifully in firefox on linux :)

Re:iPhone (5, Informative)

seasleepy (651293) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931048)

Re:iPhone (1)

rudlavibizon (948703) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931786)

But not for 64 bit Linux unfortunately. :(

Re:iPhone (1)

daniel_newton (817437) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934546)

It is open source (http://code.google.com/p/google-gears/) so that should be able to be changed

Google Gears on Linux (1)

dclozier (1002772) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931066)

I was just visiting the google gears page and they offered it for linux [google.com] . In beta of course.

Re:iPhone (1)

ashground (760276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933264)

Sorry, and, uh, Linux :)

In Soviet America... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931688)

In Soviet America, all documents are added to Google's NSA data mine!

Rivalry? (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930790)

There's a rivalry? I need to share spreadsheets with many various clients and they always suggest Google Docs. Never once have I heard a person ask to share a document with Microsoft Office Live. And my clients are each in very different industries.

Is there any real competition yet between the two in terms of user base?

Re:Rivalry? (3, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930874)

Where the other 99.99999% of the business world just emails the Word doc to the people that need it.

You're right, there is no rivalry. OpenOffice is the only thing within striking distance of MS Office. Google Apps is a joke.

Regards,

Re:Rivalry? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930968)

I love Google Docs. When I had to kick my three-timing wife to the curb we used a google spreadsheet to collect data about our assets, debts, insurance policies, etc. for the property settlement phase of our divorce -- and another to track child expenses for our shared custody arrangement. It's awesome. I didn't have to interact with her anymore than was strictly necessary. Thank you, Google.

Re:Rivalry? (2, Funny)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931434)

You mean she actually let you keep the PC???

Re:Rivalry? (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932076)

See that big building over there? That's the public library...

Re:Rivalry? (1)

Meredith-meredith (1266420) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941928)

Great that Google Docs was able to help in this way. I'm a Program Manager working with Google Docs, and I'd love to talk more about the way you were able to make use of Google Docs. Feel free to contact me here: docsprograms@google.com. Thanks again for sharing.

Re:Rivalry? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931050)

>>Google Apps is a joke

Oh yeah? I bet you have not even tried it. No matter what Google haters and similar mods say, it is a very good online office application. In fact, I do not use MS Office any more (and have not even bought it with my latest pc) and guess what? I have not missed it at all, and in fact sharing it with others was never so easy. Sending docs by attachments? Not for me, anymore.

Different people and organizations have different needs. Saying "Its a joke" is as good as saying "MS Office is a joke". It serves a particular segment of the market and it serves it pretty good, and its getting better.

Now fuck off.

Re:Rivalry? (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931138)

It's a decent Office app. It's certainly no OO.org or Word, but for my particular needs, it's more than adequate. Being able to use it offline will make it much more useful.

Re:Rivalry? (1)

LLKrisJ (1021777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931308)

I have not missed it at all, and in fact sharing it with others was never so easy
I am sorry, but if you state this then you clearly do not work with complicated documents. I need a wordprocessor to write reports, my thesis, ... I need to implement large amounts of images into my docs. These images need captions. I need equations, footnotes and references in my doc, preferably with hyperlinks for easy online reading, ... This stuff is hard enough to accomplish in MSO (although feasible) but don't even try in OO and _certainly_ not in Google Writer. The only thing that really gets the job done hassle free is my LaTeX/WinEdt combo. Pretty sad in my mind given the age of both and the undoubtably much smaller dev teams working on both when compared to both the Google and MS coding teams. What a joke.

Re:Rivalry? (1)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932008)

It's in my impression that Google Docs lacks many often-used features in Word or OOo Writer.

Say, how do you write a numbered list like the following in Google Docs?

1. Point one
1.1. Point one point one
1.1.1. Point one point one point one
(I don't really know how I can emulate the indenting here but just imagine the above list items were properly indented)

AFAIK, even simple things like the above are often impossible with Google Docs.

Re:Rivalry? (2, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932400)

I debated whether to reply to this or not - but I'm wrapping up lunch so...

I have tried it. Google Apps is a joke when compared to MS Office.

That's fine that Google Docs meets the needs of many people - I think it's great when any software is useful. Just have the sense to not put it in the same division, league, or even planet as MS Office. For all the anti-MS arguments there are, they have some solid productivity software.

In a knife-fight between (MS office+sharepoint+exchange) and (Google Apps beta v0.5) I would take the MS option every single time until someone shows me something better. And you know what? I'll be more productive, have more control over my data, and not rely on a multiple 3rd-parties for my spreadsheet to work.

Again - right tool for the right job. Other then small teams that are not mission-critical and don't need the advanced features MS Office has I cannot think of a situation where Google Apps meets that challenge.

Regards,

Re:Rivalry? (3, Interesting)

LLKrisJ (1021777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931248)

OpenOffice is the only thing within striking distance of MS Office
And even then, it often leaves much to be desired. I honestly applaud the efforts to come up with an alternative to MS Office. Because although MS offers a lot of functionality with it's software (You can produce some nice, stylish docs, as long as they stay relatively small) it also contains some absolutely incomprehensible faults;

1) Why the hell doesn't Outlook provide decent IMAP access??
2) Why can't I copy my Word2007 equations to Powerpoint???
3) What is up with that crap Master Document implementation
4) ...

That said though, OO can only compete with Office it it offers at least full support for all features in MSO. That means, opening doc or docx in OO would not lead to layout corruption, etc... Until now, that still is the case. Especially the OO Powerpoint counterpart I find particularly horrible.

I have been watching OO for a long time (4 years), but it seems bewildering to me that with current adoption by some governments and the large open source community, development of OO still seems to be progressing so horribly slow.

In the meantime I will stick to LaTeX and my trusty WinEdt for big docs...

Re:Rivalry? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931736)

You forgot number 5 - the most important and incomprehensible one!

5) Profit!!?

Re:Rivalry? (2)

LLKrisJ (1021777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932002)

As far as I am concerned a company is allowed to make a reasonable profit if they offer me a good product in return. Paying software doesn't necessarily mean 'Evil'. It's features that I am interested in. An example: why still doesnt Thunderbird, after all these years, offer decent calendaring support? As far as I am concerned, MSO Outlook is a great, yet expensive scheduling tool but it's IMAP support (which I absolutely need) just stinks. On the other side we have the free Thunderbird which is great at handling mail and has a kick ass spamfiltering system, I love it. Yet TB offers no scheduling (Lightning sucks), so the question is, what is better in the end? The OSS community should focus less on big bad Microsoft and just start making killer apps. Make me a TB with good, robust scheduling and built in GCal support (2 way please and without combersome GCal Daemons or whatever that might not be there/supported in 6 months) and I will NEVER look at MS again. But it won't happen, not even with the supposedly big group of people advocating open source goodness. My question is, WHY? Would charging 10 or so bucks do anything to rectify this/speed things up?

Re:Rivalry? (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932294)

I have to concur here. Open source desperately needs a good email-calendaring solution. Give me something that uses normal protocols like IMAP, and I can not only kiss Outlook goodbye, but the hideous resource-eating monster Exchange. I could start moving towards Samba solutions and save $$$ on Microsoft's huge licensing costs.

Re:Rivalry? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#22935788)

Have you tried Xandros server + Scalix [xandros.com] ? I have switched a couple of businesses over who couldn't afford the hardware upgrade to Win2K8 and Vista and they seem to love it. I don't know how complicated their calendars are, so I don't know if it is right for you, but they have trial downloads of Xandros server and Xandros Business Pro 4.1 so it won't cost you anything but a little time to try it out.


I know a lot of folks on slashdot complain about the MSFT deal (from what I read and heard from developers on the forums it was the only way they could get their hands on the exchange APIs they needed for interoperability) but it in my experience Xandros makes a good drop in replacement for Windows and Win server. Give it a try, it might just be what you are looking for.

Re:Rivalry? (1)

LLKrisJ (1021777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949248)

Have you tried Xandros server + Scalix?
Well no, and I don't intend to. The things you mention are similar in concept to what MS Server together with exchange probably offers.

The problem is that I want to do similar things with my personal calendar/mail, not just work related stuff. The funny thing is that one could almost do it, if only there would be some decent support for GCal in Thunderbird itself and not through some shaky 3rd party plugin. If this would be possible you would have full and powerfull access to your email all the time and scheduling would be handled from a central point and I would even get nice reminders on my cellphone through sms or the mobile google apps, that would be all I will ever need.

Re:Rivalry? (1)

andersbergh (884714) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932450)

Whooosh. You must be new here.

Re:Rivalry? (0)

LLKrisJ (1021777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932562)

Whooosh. You must be new here.
Allow me to be impressed by your clear and constructive comment... NOT

Re:Rivalry? (5, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931516)

Google Apps is a joke.

It's actually not a bad document collaboration tool without all that endless mucking about with email attachments and mapped network drives - not to mention some "quick and dirty" PDF conversion to boot.

And I can't for the life of me work out why so many people whine about tools that are basically free to use. If you've paid to use something and it's not very good, you've every right to complain - but if it's free then it can only be of benefit if you use it and absolutely no loss to you whatsoever if you don't.

Re:Rivalry? (2, Insightful)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931824)

A google apps appliance on the corporate LAN would be a huge win. Imagine how easy to support and scale it would be.

Agreed: MS Word is King (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932212)

Yeah. When you want someone to run your hostile code, MS Word's run-at-the-user's privileges script execution engine is very convenient, and it can all be done under the cover of "look at this .. uh .. text. Yeah, text." How can Google ever match that? They're going to need to release some kind of special browser plug-in so that the authors of "documents" (i.e. software) can install their own malware on readers' machines.

Re:Rivalry? (2, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932726)

Google Apps is a joke.
Only if you treat it like traditional office software.

Google Apps is AMAZING for anything that needs collaboration. It's not as full-featured as MSOffice, but it's meant to be used for different things.

Re:Rivalry? (3, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930964)

An intelligent businesses from anywhere but the U.S. would avoid Google Docs or Microsoft Office Live or any of these web-based document solutions like the plague. The USAPATRIOT act is quite the liability, especially for businesses that must report any access of customer data by outside entities. A bit hard to do that when the access is done in secret, eh?

Re:Rivalry? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931032)

I only use Google Docs at work to share priority lists with clients. There's no interesting or critical information shared. I agree the PATRIOT act is a liability for anything else.

Re:Rivalry? (1)

sunburntkamel (834288) | more than 6 years ago | (#22935028)

Nope, google docs allows editing, storage, and versioning of documents. Office Live only allows storage and check in/check out. Basecamp is a closer competitor to Office Live, in terms of features.

What's that crashing sound? (0, Troll)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930796)

Is that someone throwing chairs? Why would news of Google letting you edit word processing documents anger someone that much?

I don't get it.

Will this also edit Star Office word processing docs?

What? What do you mean "read the fucking article"?

Autism Awareness Day (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930808)

On the subject of April Fools Day, doesn't anyone else think it was in rather poor taste for the UN to select April 1 to be 'World Autism Awareness Day'?

Commoditization of software (4, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930838)

Google is riding the wave of computer hardware commoditization into one where general computing is also a commodity. Google's approach here is exemplary because it shows that monetizing every aspect of the consumer's digital interactions (which is essentially the current model for computing/internet-based businesses in the U.S.) is not necessarily the key to maximizing one's profits. By providing basic services free of charge, Google gains a share of a market that wasn't traditionally its own, and thus gains billions of additional impressions for its ads. Furthermore, by leveraging its trusted name, Google can now reasonably expect a fair increase in its ad audience with every additional service it offers.

This is a genius idea, which is an example of how forward thinking and good PR can bring in higher profits than unadulterated greed (yes, telecoms, I am looking at you). However, what this also means is that with its large cash purse, Google can continue to provide further services, channeling more and more monitor-watching eyes to its own webpages. Its purchase of Youtube provides ample evidence that Google won't be upset if you spend 100% of your computing time, on a Google-branded internet.

Re:Commoditization of software (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931146)

Interesting.

By providing basic services free of charge, Google gains a share of a market that wasn't traditionally its own, and thus gains billions of additional impressions for its ads.

I'd never really thought about it before, but the way you put it, this sure sounds a lot like "embrace, embrace, extinquish." Google gives stuff away for free (Microsoft bundles games, anti-spyware, anti-virus and browser to OS) to gain more ad impressions (gain more software market). Google won't be upset if you spend 100% of your computing time, on a Google-branded internet. Microsoft won't be upset if you spend 100% of your software budget on MS products.

Although I use both of their services, I have no allegiance to MS or Google. It just seems like history repeating itself. We can only hope our new overlords are kinder and gentler. The one thing that spooks me a little is MS has never been in control or had access to the extreme amount of personal data Google does.

Re:Commoditization of software (5, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931274)

this sure sounds a lot like "embrace, embrace, extinquish."
Where's the "extinguish" for google? Microsoft destroyed opponents by gaining their market share and then killing compatibility, making it so that things that worked on other platforms worked for Windows, but the opposite wasn't true.

Google's in significantly different markets and using different strategies. They're not pursuing marketing techniques to get market share, they get market share through having a superior product. When you use Google, you're not locked into using them all the time because of other considerations; there are no barriers to using yahoo instead.

Their google docs don't use a proprietary format, they use everyone else's formats, including word, pdf and openoffice. This means that the barrier for moving from google docs to another system is only the hassle of transferring the files, not in the formats being incompatible. They're not practicing lock-in of any kind, which is the fundamental difference between Google and Microsoft at this point: Google's playing nice, Microsoft is playing however they can.

So the comparison is dumb and inflammatory. Google's business model has been wholly different from the Microsoft model and (business-wise in the US) free of dirty tricks and underhanded maneuvers. Punish and condemn google for the bad things they've done, not for being the most successful software company to come around recently.

Re:Commoditization of software (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931510)

So the comparison is dumb and inflammatory. Google's business model has been wholly different from the Microsoft model

Is it really? Can we agree that Google has a virtual monopoly on search? And a vitual monopoly with ads? The comparison is not between the business models. The comparison is between a dominant company getting outside its core business to gain market share for its core business. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing. Any smart company in their situation would do the same thing.

You are right that MS and Google have gone about it very differently. We were forced to get fucked by MS. We are begging to get fucked by Google, because she is much sexier. I'm just saying I'm not convinced she'll turn out to be any less dangerous when it's all said and done.

Re:Commoditization of software (1)

gozu (541069) | more than 6 years ago | (#22937984)

From a John Doe point of view, when it's all said and done as you said, you're right. Google will inevitably abuse its power (A minority think it already has).

10 years after its birth, it has acted well enough to be liked by most people and that's something.

Then again, most people liked microsoft 10 years after ITS birth.

We'll have to wait and see.

Re:Commoditization of software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22936596)

This means that the barrier for moving from google docs to another system is only the hassle of transferring the files
That's quite a significant barrier. Not that it really is a problem for most users, but it is a huge advantage for Google to have people essentially locked in to their product before there's much competition for us consumers to chose from.

Ok, uhmmmm duh? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930846)

I've been wondering for quite some time why the online/offline thing was such an issue. Currently I use foxmarks which syncs bookmarks automagically. I use autosync functions on my SideKick II all the time. Synchronization tools have been around for a long time.

The only REAL problems is trusting the online storage with your data. As far as that goes it can be encrypted with better than 128bit encryption and keys remain local only if you like. I don't think that Google Docs is competition to MS Office, it's just the new way to do things. The technology finally caught up (broadband, cheap storage etc.) and now MS Office's day in the sun is fading away. A word doc (saved in OOXML or not) will seem outdated soon when you can't access it from the cybercafe or the Apple store. Sort of the same thing as 'what good is an MP3 if you can't take it on the road with you?'

Anyway, MS, good luck with that...

Re:Ok, uhmmmm duh? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930954)

Most people with decent IT can access their servers from anywhere. Even those with so-so IT can have a modicum of access in several ways (offline files, web access services) without needing Google. The thing is, anyone with nazis for IT who won't let in any outside access to their servers would have a stroke if they found you were storing data on an external machine.

It seems useful for companies too small to have "real" IT and who don't care much about data security (corp secrets and such). For much of the market, though, it's a toy. For now, at least.

Re:Ok, uhmmmm duh? (2, Interesting)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931916)

Online / Offline isn't an issue.

Most of the time.

It's that 1% to 2% of the time, IE on an airplane, at the airport (without wifi) or when the ubiquitous high speed internet at home or at the office is mysteriously down due to a)The backhoe effect b)bad storms, flooding, hurricane, c) maintenance, d) ISP Messup, e)your modem gets hit by lightning e) gremlins

That 2% of the time, which could be 10%, or 1%, really stinks because it never happens at a convenient time. Offline would be good then.

My wife uses google calendar EXTENSIVELY. It really stinks for her when the internet is down at home (not very often, but like I said, she uses it extensively) because if she needs to check something on the calendar, it's ... it's ... GONE! We now have internet enabled phones so now if the main intarweb tubes are down we can still get online. Whew! I need to install a local calendaring app for her and have it sync'd with google calendar. I saw a nice article in maximum PC which showed some real easy steps to do it right.

(I know it's april 1st, but I really do have a wife)

Re:Ok, uhmmmm duh? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932064)

(I know it's april 1st, but I really do have a wife)
That's hilarious!!

I'm looking into similar with a server at home as the sync point, then syncing that to Google et al online. Hoping to combine the sync mechanisms of several phone/pda types in the mix and have full familial synching even when the intarwebtubes are down... let the server sync it when they come back up.

Re:Ok, uhmmmm duh? (1)

NealokNYU (779603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932988)

As long as you actually enter all calendar data on Google Calendar, this is a top-notch solution, thanks to Google's support for ICS. My iCal, Outlook, my Verizon phone (using Verizon Wireless Access by Intellisync), and Lightning* all check the Google homebase for calendar updates. Depending on the service, the clients go haywire when I try to update calendars from the non-Google application, but it's pretty amazing that my calendar gets pushed to a bunch of devices, such that any one of them can be my calendar, to say nothing of any internet-enabled terminal. Gotta love 2008!

Now, if we could just stop raping the planet, technology would be so super-rad!

Re:Ok, uhmmmm duh? (1)

jimcooncat (605197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934252)

"Online / Offline isn't an issue.

Most of the time."

1. Not everyone lives in ubiquitous high speed internet land. Not even in the U.S. Even though we funded the interstate highway system and rural electric grid.

2. Google might be a lot of people's darling, and some have nothing to hide. But it's not the place I'd store any confidential documents. Their company motto might be "do no evil", but odds are that *someone* there has done *something* evil at work.

Ponies? (0, Offtopic)

wizzy403 (303479) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930858)

I heard there were ponies? Where are my ponies?? OMG THINK OF THE PONIES!!!

Re:Ponies? (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930880)

April Fools :)

Opposite talk (4, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930886)

Didn't docs come before office live?

Re:Opposite talk (1)

bestinshow (985111) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931062)

Maybe, but edlin came before vi/emacs but would you use that?

Google Docs is horribly primitive. I use it for writing todo lists and notes which I can access from different locations. I haven't had it yet once successfully open a doc file I've been emailed.

I see no reason to use it as a stand-alone application offline, unless they've put a far better version online in the past week or two. Which they need to if they're serious about online applications.

Re:Opposite talk (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931104)

That's what I was wondering. It seems to me like it would make more sense to focus on adding an online component to say openoffice then to create yet another document editor. Especially one that's watered down (if what you say is true). Maybe merging a version control system with a decent editor so that the checking out part is transparent to the user. Hmm, that kinda sounds like a fun project.

Even if that isn't true (1)

centinall (868713) | more than 6 years ago | (#22936812)

Didn't docs come before office live?


Even if that isn't true, I believe that all office live offered initial was basically a place to store and share Office documents. There was no functionality to actually create or edit Office documents.

fake 'weather' more discouraging each day (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930974)

at 7 a.m. it was 34 degrees out. now, at 11:30 it's 60 degrees with 30-40 mph winds, & a few drops of rain here & there. we live in northern ny. we've not seen 'weather' like this in our lifetime (& some of us are 'old'). let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Re:fake 'weather' more discouraging each day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931122)

Don't yOU ever get tired of posting the same shit nobody reads?

And learn how to fucking type already.

OT: What? No Ponies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930980)

What kind of cruel April Fools joke is that?

Source Code (3, Informative)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931044)

For those that are interested, the source code can be downloaded from here [google.com] . Notice it's a BSD license.

I find Google Docs very useful (3, Insightful)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931126)

I still use LaTex+OmniGraffle for serious writing and OpenOffice.org when customers use Microsoft document formats, but I find myself using Google Docs more for short notes, short papers, sharing writing with other GMail users, etc.

The addition of Google Gears based local document storage over the next few weeks will not be a feature I ill need often, but it will be good to have.

BTW, I use a utility tht you can find on the web (gdatacopier.py) to periodically back up all of my Google Docs - just in case.

Google docs: paragraphs please (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931176)

Offline is nice, but can we have some of the basic functionality fixed? Like a way to display paragraphs and linebreaks differently, for example?

consortium needed (3, Interesting)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931196)

Why isn't a consortium forming between Google, Apple, and OpenOffice.org to give all three office suites the capability to edit each others' documents with 100% formatting and content compatibility, and 100% support on Windows, Mac, Java, and X11 based *nix environments? Each one of these organizations is formidable by itself, able to fight Microsoft off a bit here, a bit there. In the end, though, they're each a 600 pound gorilla, and Microsoft is an 800 pound gorilla. But these three organizations together, a team weighing in at 1800 pounds, would crush Microsoft like an ant.

Re:consortium needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931358)

ODF anyone?

Re:consortium needed (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931396)

Microsoft is an 800 pound gorilla.

...of which at least 300lbs is a somewhat balding dancing gorilla that juggles furniture.

Re:consortium needed (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931486)

Why isn't a consortium forming between Google, Apple, and OpenOffice.org to give all three office suites the capability to edit each others' documents with 100% formatting and content compatibility,

Google Docs is constrained by what browsers can do. They do attempt to support ODF as much as they can, but there are limits. Hopefully, things will get better with Firefox 3.

Apple appears to have made a deliberate corporate decision to be incompatible with OpenOffice. If you submit a feature request for support for ODF to their developer issue tracking system, they mark it "company internal" and it disappears. There is really nothing to be gained by Apple for helping open standards; they'll probably just license OOXML and tout their Windows compatibility.

Re:consortium needed (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932344)

Apple appears to have made a deliberate corporate decision to be incompatible with OpenOffice.

I disagree with this. Rather, I suspect Apple has not prioritized ODF and created their iWork applications based upon their own format for convenience. If Apple as a company was trying to be incompatible with OpenOffice they would not have added ODF support to TextEdit. I would venture to guess that Apple sees the business case for supporting import and export to MSOffice formats, but is as yet unconvinced about ODF and whether it will succeed in the marketplace. I hope that they understand that they can help to influence the direction of the market in a positive way by moving to ODF as the native format for their offerings, but even I am not sure that is really the case.

There is really nothing to be gained by Apple for helping open standards; they'll probably just license OOXML and tout their Windows compatibility.

Actually there is (potentially) something to be gained. By supporting ODF they can become one more vendor that helps demonstrate the benefit of ODF over OOXML. They can also qualify as a vendor for purchases in the future that require ODF (as some government agencies are now moving towards). Anything that hurts Microsoft and weakens their monopoly influences, leads to a better market for Apple to compete in. The only question for Apple is if it is worth the cost and is the battle already lost by ODF?

Re:consortium needed (2, Interesting)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932790)

Anything that hurts Microsoft and weakens their monopoly influences, leads to a better market for Apple to compete in.

Apple made a deal with Microsoft and they have Microsoft Office on their platform. That's something that helps them a lot in competing with open source desktop operating systems. Why would they want to lose that advantage by supporting ODF?

They can also qualify as a vendor for purchases in the future that require ODF (as some government agencies are now moving towards)

They can do that with NeoOffice.

If Apple as a company was trying to be incompatible with OpenOffice they would not have added ODF support to TextEdit.

Makes perfect sense: they want people to be able to read the occasional ODF file, but they don't want people to strengthen ODF by fully supporting it.

I disagree with this. Rather, I suspect Apple has not prioritized ODF and created their iWork applications based upon their own format for convenience.

Well, you can "disagree" all you want, but it isn't born out by the facts. Apple has spent a lot of time and money developing two different XML formats for iWork when they could have just adopted the ODF format.

Re:consortium needed (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933334)

Apple made a deal with Microsoft and they have Microsoft Office on their platform. That's something that helps them a lot in competing with open source desktop operating systems. Why would they want to lose that advantage by supporting ODF?

Apple doesn't really compete with OSS in the desktop space. It might in the future, but to date OSS does not have enough market share to count. Apple does compete with Microsoft and with Microsoft's customers. Microsoft has been leveraging their office suite to gain an advantage in other markets. Ceding the office suite market to MS hurts Apple's iWork sales. It hurts their computer sales too. MS having monopoly influence in the office suite market, but not leveraging it directly against Apple in the computer market is where Apple is now. They know they would be in a better position yet if they could get rid of MS's monopoly influence in the office suite market, especially since MS has announced changes that will lead to their exploiting it against apple (dropping vb scripts in office for the mac).

They can do that with NeoOffice.

Currently, I wouldn't recommend it. NeoOffice is just too slow and buggy for large scale production use (IMHO). In any case, that only applies to sales of computer systems, not to sales of office suites. Apple sells an office suite called iWork, which currently is not in the running for those contracts.

Makes perfect sense: they want people to be able to read the occasional ODF file, but they don't want people to strengthen ODF by fully supporting it.

Except TextEdit has both read and write support for ODF. If they wanted to keep ODF from competing with them, why would they provide support for writing to it? Also, TextEdit ships with every OS X system, iWork does not. That means OS X itself has better support for ODF, by default, than Apple's own iWork formats.

Well, you can "disagree" all you want, but it isn't born out by the facts.

I think it is.

Apple has spent a lot of time and money developing two different XML formats for iWork when they could have just adopted the ODF format.

The first reports of iWork in development were in 2003. It was officially announced in 2004 and was actually available in 2005. ODF 1.0 was finalized in 2006. Draft versions of ODF existed as early as 2002. For reference OpenOffice.org did not support ODF until 2005, the same year iWork was already on sale. It did not gain momentum among any other vendors (except Sun) for another year.

If the iWork team at Apple were aware of the upcoming ODF standard, they could have joined the group and helped create the first version (and used it in Pages). As it was though, Pages was not being targeted as a Word replacement for general word processing. Rather it was targeted as a layout application for home users, sort of like InDesign for home users. Many of the features it used were targeted at that market segment and were quite different and even if Apple had joined there is no guarantee they would have had enough influence to make ODF appropriate for their target market. Even today the committee is pretty much Sun and IBM employees. There are a few Novell people and Chinese government people, two guys from Adobe, and one guy from Google. That's pretty much it. It would be quite nice if Apple joined and provided support in their applications. They may, eventually, do that, especially if the formats see wider uptake in the future. Claiming that Apple is intentionally avoiding compatibility is a stretch. It is probably mostly a matter of which types of employees have influence on the iWork project. It is probably old school Apple guys (who tend to largely ignore standards and security) as opposed to former Next employees and people hired in from the Linux/BSD/Unix community.

Re:consortium needed (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22935436)

Apple doesn't really compete with OSS in the desktop space.

OSS is widely used on the desktop, probably more widely than Macintosh. You're confusing the desktop with the home market.

Currently, I wouldn't recommend it.

What does that have to do with anything?

Except TextEdit has both read and write support for ODF.

Well, hey, no need to buy iWork then, right? Don't make me laugh.

The first reports of iWork in development were in 2003.

Yes, and they could have adopted OpenOffice XML at the time, then moved to ODF along with OpenOffice. Instead, they went through two poorly designed XML formats that were homegrown.

Claiming that Apple is intentionally avoiding compatibility is a stretch.

Apple has a long history of intentional incompatibilities, and Apple has no interest in helping ODF adoption or risking their relationship with Microsoft.

Re:consortium needed (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22937130)

OSS is widely used on the desktop, probably more widely than Macintosh. You're confusing the desktop with the home market.

While numbers are hard to calculate for OSS desktop OS's, I haven't seen numbers to support your assertion. That isn't too important though because you are misunderstanding the market distinctions. Apple doesn't sell desktop OS's. They use vertical bundling to bypass the desktop OS market and instead compete in the computer system market. OSS OS's have a very small market share pre-installed or even OS-less whiteboxes.

What does that have to do with anything?

It speaks to the viability of NeoOffice in professional use as a competitor to Apple's office suite. I've seen it there but not on a large scale, not even on the scale of iWork (let alone MS Office).

Well, hey, no need to buy iWork then, right? Don't make me laugh.

Umm, I don't see what you're trying to get at. You argued that Apple as a company was opposed to letting ODF gain a foothold. When I countered with Apple's support in TextEdit you claimed that maybe they only wanted users to be able to read the occasional ODF document, but at the same time keep it from being viable as a competitor. Apple's support for writing ODF contradicts that theory. Claiming now that it isn't important on the third iteration of this subject is weak. Just concede the point gracefully and move on.

Yes, and they could have adopted OpenOffice XML at the time

No, they couldn't have since it wasn't finished. They could have moved to a draft of it and tried to influence the spec enough to work for iWork and OpenOffice, but there is no guarantee they would have been successful. Of course at that point the developers may not have even heard of it let alone considered it viable. We don't even know if they started from scratch with iWork or used an existing code base from Apple or Next. In short, Apple could have considered ODF and possibly adopted it, but we have no idea if they evaluated it or if they did, how risky they considered such a move or how much more expensive it would have been for them. Remember, at that time the spec was not implemented by anyone and there was no guarantee it would be. Further, the spec was at that point completely under Sun's control. For all they knew at that point it was never going to be implemented by anyone else.

Instead, they went through two poorly designed XML formats that were homegrown.

That's an interesting assertion. How, exactly, do you find Apple's XML formats to be poorly designed (and for that matter which formats are you referring to, iWork has 3 formats: .key, .pages, and .numbers).

Apple has a long history of intentional incompatibilities

That's very interesting, but what does that have to do with whether or not they are intentionally making iWork incompatible? At the time of Apple's creation of iWork, there was no approved open standard for office suites and not even OpenOffice would support ODF (when it was finished) for another year.

Apple has no interest in helping ODF adoption or risking their relationship with Microsoft.

Great two more assertions. You do know you have to do more than make assertions in order to make a persuasive argument, right? How about backing up some of your assertions with some facts or logic. Everything you've presented so far has been an empty assertion or a fact I have demonstrated is false or does not prove what you hoped it did. In logic, facts precede forming an opinion. Why don't schools teach logic anymore?

Re:consortium needed (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22938560)

How about backing up some of your assertions with some facts or logic.

I have given you facts:

* Apple has a long history of deliberately incompatible formats and standards, showing that Apple believes incompatibilities to be in their commercial interest. There is no indication or reason that they are doing anything different for iWork.

* FOSS clearly is competing with Apple at universities and on corporate desktops, and any support they give that makes FOSS more viable in those markets would likely be a threat to them. On the other hand, Apple has made a deal with Microsoft for Microsoft Office on OS X, which gives them a competitive advantage relative to FOSS. Hence, promoting ODF is not in their interest.

* Apple didn't need to wait for ODF ratification in 2006 in order to adopt an open XML format for iWork. The OpenOffice XML format was around and well-documented when Apple started iWork, but Apple ignored it. A couple of years later, ODF was well along and could have formed the basis for Apple's redesigned format, but Apple ignored it again and chose to design their own next generation format.

* ODF's structure can easily represent MS Office and iWork documents (since that's one of their use cases); since iWork supports MS Office compatibility, adding ODF support to iWork should be quite easy.

* Instead of openly responding to issue requests for ODF support in iWork, Apple quietly deletes such feature requests from their developer issue tracker.

* TextEdit's "support" for ODF is so limited that it simply doesn't constitute a threat to Apple's proprietary formats.

Everything you've presented so far has been an empty assertion or a fact I have demonstrated is false or does not prove what you hoped it did. In logic, facts precede forming an opinion.

You have demonstrated nothing. You have simply been waving your hands trying to argue that, despite all the facts, there is still some possibility that things aren't the way they seem. Your arguments are not persuasive. The fact remains that Apple iWork uses a proprietary XML format, even though Apple had ample opportunity to adopt formats that are compatible with open source systems, first OpenOffice then ODF. Apple's behavior is consistent with their corporate policies and their commercial interests.

Of course, Apple can do whatever they like. But open source developers should remember that Apple is not their friend, Apple is a competitor that is every bit as dirty and ruthless as Microsoft, and Apple should be treated accordingly.

Why don't schools teach logic anymore?

Maybe if you had paid better attention, it wouldn't have gone over your head.

Apple and ODF (1)

mgh02114 (655185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932434)

Apple appears to have made a deliberate corporate decision to be incompatible with OpenOffice.
Apple made a deal with Microsoft. Microsoft agreed to write an Intel version of Office, and to license MSXML to Apple for iWork. (I refuse to call it OOxml, that would be contributing to trademark infringement on Open Office). In return, Apple agreed not to support ODF in iWork.

Notice how clever that was. Apple said they won't put ODF in iWork, but they never said that they wouldn't put ODF into TextEdit, which comes free with every single Mac.

More like 2 bonobos and a chimp :) (1)

gozu (541069) | more than 6 years ago | (#22938038)

What Apple and OpenOffice do is negligible since they have virtually no relevance in the market MS Office dominates.

Google and Apple both have the money and savvy to try to compete in the "serious business" world but it would cost them a fortune and they have no guarantee they can beat the fantastic MS Office teams. They are the best, afterall. Excel and Word 2k7 are amazingly powerful and elegant programs.

That's a nice trick (0, Troll)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931580)

The page loads as quickly as it would have in 1994!

Hybridization (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932122)

I really think hybrid applications that are both traditional and Web apps are going to be the way of the future. Local applications don't allow you to edit from any machine, are not automatically kept up to date (payware), and don't allow developers to easily leverage ad revenue or subscriptions. They are not as simple for collaboration and publishing to the Web. They are not as easily targeted to all platforms because of lack of standardization for running applications across OS's

Web apps are reliant upon a network connection, don't provide the security demanded by some use cases, and are not good at finding geographically close users. Performance is limited by network throughput and latency.

Really in a free market the direction of development is almost certain to go to apps that connect to internet services or apps that are also internet servers. They both come down to the same thing, just differing in the emphasis on decentralization or centralization. Given that the network is the more common limiting factor today (especially in the US and the third world) hybrid apps like this offering are probably going to be very big, very soon. The only thing holding this back has been Microsoft's ability to cripple Web technologies and their monopoly influence in the office suite market.

How are they saving locally? (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932268)

Just curious about the tech. I ass/u/me this is all in Javascript. How are they writing to local storage? I must have fallen asleep at some point in my Javascript-learning and missed something. Are they exploiting a bu^H^H subtlety? It seems like whatever makes this possible, would be a hole that that browsers need to close.

Re:How are they saving locally? (1)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932582)

Well, it does require the installation of Google Gears. IIRC Google Gears is a browser plugin/extension that acts as a proxy for your network connection. I suppose it's not difficult to make it special-case handle Google Docs requests and handle them by itself, including interacting with the local file system. Otherwise, I would see no need for Gears.

Re:How are they saving locally? (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933190)

Here's a situation where AJAX is actually useful. I don't know how Google implements it but you can use javascript functions (aka AJAX) to send data to a page/app that does have permission for storage. Oh and very nice the ass/u/me .

Google Docs vs Microsoft Office Live (3, Insightful)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932416)

I have evaluated both for use by my workplace, mostly because I despise the the "document sharing through email". I used cvs (and LaTeX) for collaborations on group assignments as a student back in the 80s, so I know how much better it can be. Unfortunately, both fail in my current work environment.

Google Docs fail because it is not Microsoft Office, and I'm not going to convince my cow-orkers to learn a new set of office applications.

Microsoft Office Live fails because it is too complicated and confusing for me to learn, much less teach. I couldn't even figure out if the documents are under version control, and the "integration" into the office applications is a joke (it is very slow and requires multiple indirections just to open a document, and it takes a separate navigation bar).

So while my workplace is a lost cause, I use Google Docs with my family. It has a simple and intuitive interface, and my family are much less tied to MS Office than my workspace.

Re: Google Docs vs Microsoft Office Live (2, Informative)

SonVoltMMA (914728) | more than 6 years ago | (#22937778)

Ever heard of SharePoint? You will...

Re: Google Docs vs Microsoft Office Live (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22938032)

Ever heard of SharePoint?
Only indirectly when reading reviews of Microsoft Office Live, which is supposed to be a simplified version of SharePoint. So...

MS is trying i guess (1)

troutsoup (648171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22935146)

microsoft just added support for online document sharing with a little add-in for office. 500 mb space. of course you still need to have a copy of office whereas with google apps they're free.

http://workspace.officelive.com/ [officelive.com]

WordPerfect (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 6 years ago | (#22938204)

If you are writing a doctorate thesis or a novel, or your C*O or director must have that perfect letter head to send out their decree, yeah, MS Office is better for the job. Actually a Mac would be really what you want, since MS actually makes Office better on the Mac than the PC version. And Pages and Keynote from Apple give your professional document templates and presentation on a par, if not better, than most Word and PowerPoints you'll see. Not to mention the additional Adobe design tools you can use to embellish your docs even more.

My IT dept looked at SheerPointless and decided it's not worth the hassle. Yet those Word and Excel files that people sent and re-attached and CC'd/BCC'd round-and-around are the exact reasons why IT limits our mailbox size to the ridiculous, and email server backups now take longer and longer and ever more tape. I've stopped using work emails and Office for things I do not want to delete, since Google practically gives me unlimited space for all my email and documents.

What do people think of wikis? Have you tried Bootcamp, Zoho, or ThinkFree? For a lot of my IT work documentation, especially *live* documents while the project is ongoing, Word to me is just obsolete. There are tons of online/collaboration document/project tools now. All the people outside of Redmond developing these apps in new and novel ways together is a challenge even for a 800-lb gorilla like MS to keep up. For the past 2 years that I've used Google Docs, the improvements have been pretty dramatic, not necessarily in new office features, but in advancing the application platform as a whole to work near flawlessly on all major recent browsers. When was the last groundbreaking, really productivity boosting feature added to Word (that you didn't have to be trained to do)?

It's a race as to who can improve faster to keep ahead of the trends. I say use the right tool for the job, but don't get too attached to one software or hinge your workflow on some particular arcane feature no others have, or you'll end up like places I've worked for where WordPerfect is stil around.

Re:WordPerfect (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 6 years ago | (#22938278)

correction: meant to say Basecamp, not Bootcamp. duh
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...