Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 13:24 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Features, Office "Today's another exciting day as we move closer to Beta 1. We are just wrapping up the MVP summit here in Redmond and we've finally announced another piece of functionality I've wanted to talk about for a long time now. This afternoon Steven Sinofsky announced to our MVPs that we will build in native support for the PDF format in Office 12."
Order by: Score:
Good, I hate Adobe Reader
by Jody on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 13:37 UTC
Jody
Member since:
2005-06-30

Seriously, that app makes my skin crawl. For those that don't want to wait for Office 12 support to rid your PC of Reader you shoud check out Foxit PDF reader here http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

It is light, fast, and free.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good, I hate Adobe Reader
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 14:35 UTC in reply to "Good, I hate Adobe Reader"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You can use ghostview/ghostscript to view PDFs.

On one occasion I found GV better than Adobe. A client needed to print an IRS form from the web. The form had a colored shaded background in some parts and only a monochrome printer was available. Adobe rendered the foreground and background with the same gray-scale value, thus making the printed output useless. With Ghostview the text was readable.

A strange example, but I've always since felt it was useful to have more than one way to render a formatted document.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good, I hate Adobe Reader
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 17:59 UTC in reply to "Good, I hate Adobe Reader"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You forgot to mention:

1) That Foxit is a stand alone .exe file. No hard drive install is necessary for this product.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Good, I hate Adobe Reader
by Celerate on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 20:51 UTC in reply to "Good, I hate Adobe Reader"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

That reader app looks like just another interface to Adobe Acrobat Reader, it even has the same advertisements on the top left corner. Why then would someone use this instead of Adobe reader?

Reply Score: 1

Compete to OOo
by markpeak on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 13:40 UTC
markpeak
Member since:
2005-07-06

When I was asked what feature bring OpenOffice.org over Microsoft Office. My answer usually is pdf export (to non geek user who don't know and don't care about OpenDocument).

I can't answer like that anymore.

However, OOo2 uses traditional office suite interface with new format (OpenDocument).
Office 12 also uses new format (Open XML) but whole new interface too.

This add learning curve for Office 12 than OOo2. No one knows that new interface is good or not, then this is chance for OOo2 because it will release in weeks compare with Office 12 for months.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compete to OOo
by Jody on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 14:02 UTC in reply to "Compete to OOo"
Jody Member since:
2005-06-30

There is a review of OOo2 here http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/176/41/

The reviewer didn't seem real impressed with it. He said the simple installer is gone in favor of packages, they copy MS too much, and Writer is too bloated now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Compete to OOo
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Compete to OOo"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The reviewer didn't seem real impressed with it. He said the simple installer is gone in favor of packages, they copy MS too much, and Writer is too bloated now.

* The installer was critisized for being too simple before. That's a fix.

* OOo 1 was critisized for not being like MSO enough for people to easily pick it up. That's a fix.

* In what way is Writer bloated? (I read the comments, and I don't get it...word processors are getting bigger mostly to handle integration of different data types.)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Compete to OOo
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compete to OOo"
Anonymous Member since:
---

When are you going to learn that Open Source developers are damned if they do, and damned if they don't?

* If it is too much like a Microsoft product, they are accused of stealing it.

* If it is too little like a Microsoft produced, they are accused of making products which are hard to use (because noone wants to spend time learning it).

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Compete to OOo
by rcsteiner on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Compete to OOo"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

The same is true of any non-Microsoft product. Ami Pro and WordPerfect faced similar comments, and those were definitely not open source.

Of course, you also hear the same thing in a PhotoShop context, so perhaps it applies to any dominant product.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compete to OOo
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 14:03 UTC in reply to "Compete to OOo"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And by the time OpenDocument gains momentum un the enterprise, it will be too late for MS Office.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Compete to OOo
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 14:36 UTC in reply to "Compete to OOo"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This PDF capability is great since it means that people won't have an excuse to post Word documents for public consumption. But that still doesn't address the ability to collaborate on projects (ie. a document format which is easily editable by all).

While I'm sure that Microsoft is going to be placing a lot of emphasis on the "open" in Open XML, it isn't sufficient if it is the patented one which everyone is talking about. Yeah, yeah. I know that the PDF specification is owned by Adobe. On the other hand Adobe has been very flexible with who can implement their PDF and PS specifications. We haven't seen this sort of flexibility from Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Compete to OOo
by n4cer on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Compete to OOo"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

MS' XML formats are no more patent encumbered than PDF. A patent license is given for all patents currently applicable or that may be in the future. What's so hard about actually reading the license before making false claims about it (This is a question for all, not just you)?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Compete to OOo
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 23:09 UTC in reply to "Compete to OOo"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"This add learning curve for Office 12 than OOo2. No one knows that new interface is good or not, then this is chance for OOo2 because it will release in weeks compare with Office 12 for months."

Unfortunately, having used the very similar Lotus Word Pro I believe this interface will be extremely good (even allowing for the usual inferiority of Microsoft clones.) The instant updates and live application of formatting will actually reduce learning curves for new users. With the MS marketing machine behind it, this will become ubiquitous. Hopefully OO.o will catch up quickly.

Reply Score: 0

Massachusetts
by Tyr. on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 14:52 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

This just happens to be one of the open formats sanctioned for use by the state of Massachusetts.
Coincidence ? More like an example of what is possible if you decide to apply some pressure for once (DOJ take note!)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Massachusetts
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 16:50 UTC in reply to "Massachusetts"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football.

I bet their PDF importer/exporter works pretty well in Office 12, then tanks in subsequent releases.

Paul G

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Massachusetts
by markbrophy on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Massachusetts"
markbrophy Member since:
2005-07-18

I'd say that you're absolutely correct... the first thing that I thought when I read this headline was "gee... sounds like a bid to win back over Massachusetts". I want Microsoft developers to start adding/removing features for the sake of the user's experience, instead of always being driven by corporate strategy and the bottom line.

-Mark

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Massachusetts
by VenomousGecko on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Massachusetts"
VenomousGecko Member since:
2005-07-06

I want Microsoft to be more open and more flexible as well but saying:

"I want Microsoft developers to start adding/removing features for the sake of the user's experience, instead of always being driven by corporate strategy and the bottom line."

is a bit off the mark. Why would Microsoft want to do anything extra when they can get away with minimal and still sell copies of Office.

This is why competition is so vital for the consumer because competition is the "ONLY" reason why most companies improve products. Only when they are forced to compete do they truly improve their product.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Compete to OOo
by Morty on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 14:52 UTC
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

In what way is Writer bloated? (I read the comments, and I don't get it...word processors are getting bigger mostly to handle integration of different data types.)

It's bloated becouse using bloat to critisise something is very popular. Since it's nice and fussy yet "powerfull", and you can use it without having to back your claims in any way. At least that's how people use it, and it's usually nonsens too.

And as you say all word processors are getting bigger, it's nothing isolated for Writer. I am of the opinion that most of it actually are useless, at least for 95% or more of the user. I think very little, in the way of real usefull features, has been added to wordprocessors since the days of Word 2.0.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Compete to OOo
by dylansmrjones on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Compete to OOo"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I don't know Word 2.0 but I know that Wordperfect 6.0a had a lot more functionality than most people would ever use, even today. But it also lacks something which we need today, like support for long filenames (limitation in DOS/Windows 3.x).

A lot of the "bloat" could be removed with a more modular construction, but that's probably not going to happen for a long while I'm afraid, even though it technically is very easy to do, and gives much better performance (when done right, that is).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Compete to OOo
by kmarius on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Compete to OOo"
kmarius Member since:
2005-06-30

Perhaps if you start from scratch, but I don't think converting a huge piece of software like Office 12 is trivial.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Compete to OOo
by dylansmrjones on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Compete to OOo"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You're right about that. And that's why I don't think it would ever happen.

Not to mention that some of my ideas would require most OS'es to be rewritten quite a bit ;)

Reply Score: 1

An installer?
by morganth on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 15:28 UTC
morganth
Member since:
2005-07-13

From the review's conclusion:

"A better GNU/Linux installer. Installing OpenOffice.org used to be easy -- there was a simple graphical program that walked you through it. Now what do we have -- a bunch of RPMs? Sorry, that's not going to cut it. Let's have the sensible installer back."

Is this guy insane?

OO.org is free software? It will come with every single distro on earth that is released after OOo 2.0 ships. The installer isn't even necessary.

Not to mention that rpms _are_ better than an installer, since that'll make sure future versions are more easily upgradeable. Please, let's not take this guy's advice and send one of the few things Linux Desktop does completely right (package management) back to the stone ages with MS's "free for all" installer system.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: An installer?
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 02:11 UTC in reply to "An installer?"
RE[2]: An installer?
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE: An installer?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"But that's secondary to another issue. If you want Joe Public to use your software, you better make it as painless as possible for him. That means a good installer. You don't want his first impression of your software to be an unintuitive installation procedure."

I love Linux but this is 100% correct.

The good thing is that this issue will get solved and implemented correctly in due time with OSS.

OSS is more about Q&A than a quick release to market and then dealing with the types of issues that plague MS. Like stability and security.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: An installer?
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE: An installer?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

apt-get install foo. This beats googling for a website then figuring out which package to download. I know some pantywaists have a fear of the command line (zOMG, DOS!), but that is where something like Synaptic comes in. (replace with your distro's command/GUI stuff. If you are using a distro that doesn't do this, maybe you are using the wrong distro).

Seriously now. We've got "go to http://www.openoffice.org/ , click on download (the stable version), choose language, OS, and location, save the file, then run it (possibly involving navigating explorer to some random folder) and click next a whole lot"
OR
"open Xandros Networks and expand office. Click on open office, then click install, then apply" (something like that, not using Xandros here)

The first doesn't win by being easier, it wins only because people are used to it (though not necessarily good at it if you look at all the adware people inadvertently install along with the App they were after). If they were to use Linux and get over their fear of what's different, they'd see it was easier and quicker.

Those of us who actually use a linux distro with dependency resolution and have for some time and actually are familiar with something other than the windows way of setup.exe already know it's easier, and for the most part deplore your attempts to suckify the process of installing software on Linux. We actually like code reuse, fixing a bug in one place in a library instead of in each application that uses it. We like downloading and installing with one line.

As for Joe User, he would be a lot better served by being forced to take a minute to learn a system that he will find easier and faster than to be pandered to by derivative aping of the OS you seem to want him to be able to migrate away from in the first place.

Reply Score: 0

Dont forget Abiword
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 16:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

AbiWord 2.3.99 has PDF save as and a hole load of other formats, no need for Open Office writer, or koffice now.

Lets not forget about AbiWord, which is free for win, linux and OSX.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Dont forget Abiword
by Ethyriel on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 17:35 UTC in reply to "Dont forget Abiword"
Ethyriel Member since:
2005-07-07

That's exactly what I was thinking, plus it doesn't have the bloat that's so common in word processors now. Morty, you honestly think that people just complain about bloat because it's popular? The problem is that the added features slow down the application, especially starting it, and actually interfere with normal usage. Most people aren't capable of sifting through hundreds of options in a configuration applet, so they're left fighting things like the automated list formatting in larger word processors. Things like this can double or triple how long it takes someone like my father to write a document, who's been using more minimalistic word processors since the Apple II. Not to mention the high level of undue frustration it causes.

Abiword, on the other hand, can open most files, it can edit them, and it can check spelling. Plus it opens in 3-4 seconds on my 6 year old system, and hasn't crashed once. That's the perfect word processor to me. It has plenty of formatting options, but not much that doesn't belong in a word processor.

I honestly don't see why we need all these features in 'modern' word processors. I work in a small printshop, and there are a surprising amount of people who do rather complex newsletter layouts in Word, and let me tell you something, the layouts usually break when opened in a different version. But as long as the developers keep adding these features, people will keep using the wrong tool instead of something like Publisher or Scribus.

Reply Score: 3

Except in Massachussets?
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 17:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So, 30,000 search requests were made for PDF support and that makes native PDF support a necessity, but 80,000 desktops in Mass. aren't worth adding ODF support>

Very logical and consistent? You be the judge. The market space will be the jury and, if needed, executioner.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, Im replying to myself.

It's not 30,000 search requests total. It's 30,000 per week.

So, consume NaCl as appropriate with my comment above.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

How many are unique?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Hi! It's good old anonymous me again.

While there are probably over 400 unique pdf support request searches each week there are only two searches for pdf support that are actually from unique users. Both are Independent Contractors hired by a temp agency in Mumbai to flood the MSDN site with these searches.

So now maybe Adobe can justify discontinuing the Reader program once a few more programs are out there. Or maybe just one ubiquitous program.

No point giving away what everybody else is giving away when you could be developing something new in the way of an income stream with those resources instead of having a constant drain on the resources that isn't getting you as much positive PR as it should for the price.

OK, if you haven't already guessed, I just made that up.

But you can see the info about 30k searches *per week* on BJ's blog that is linked to on the homepage. You may find other "interesting" discussions there too.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

No doubt, they are forced to support PDF...And then, once they have control? Implement "their features" to lock in people. And the loop will start again!

Reply Score: 1

This is a Good Thing
by saterdaies on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 18:10 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

In fact, this is better than a Good Thing. While PDF was created by Adobe, it is an open and free standard. This is what allows Apple to use it for its Quartz display engine. This is what allows applications like Envice and XPDF to create without worry of getting sued.

Moving to PDF means universal document compatibility or at least the capability for it. Sure, it'd be great if Microsoft embraced OpenDocument as well, but PDF means that others don't have to rely on Microsoft to read documents created in their products.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Dont forget Abiword
by Morty on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 18:28 UTC
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

you honestly think that people just complain about bloat because it's popular?

Yes, since it has been shown time after time more than 9 out of 10 of those complaints are pure nonsens. They either don't or can't give any meaningfull description of the supposed "bloat", or they actually are plain wrong when they do.

On the other hand I tends to agree when you say wordprocessors for most people generally have to much features. And that those features sometimes may both reduce usability and performance. But since this is more related to details in implementation rather than the number of features, vague references to "bloat" are mostly invalid.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Dont forget Abiword
by Ethyriel on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dont forget Abiword"
Ethyriel Member since:
2005-07-07

And 87% of all statistics are pulled out of an ass ;)

Here's the thing, the average user doesn't know much about computers. Yeah, that's a newsflash, but it's relevant in the fact that their criticisms tend to sound like uneducated bullshit. They'll go and try to be specific about the bloat when really, all they need to do is say it's too slow and the vast number of features confuse me. Instead, by being specific, they invalidate their complaints because bloat isn't a specific issue, it's the application's design as a whole. Each specific issue adds up to be a part of it, but each alone makes for an argument that sounds like a desperate justification for bitching.

In short, most complaints will center around a feature or two which that user perceives to get in the way above all others. Those couple features, if tacked onto a slim word processor, probably wouldn't annoy that same user, but along with all the other extraneous features they do.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Dont forget Abiword
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dont forget Abiword"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Take a look at the original version of ClarisWorks. You could stick the program on a floppy diskette. That program would offer you a word processor, spreadsheet, database, vector illustration program, and terminal emulator. The operating system which it runs under could be installed on another floppy disk. Both floppies would have space to spare for your documents.

Before you claim it is an unusable program which produces ugly documents: it is a Macintosh application which sports a good user interface which can produce good results on a laser printer.

While I would be a liar if I claimed that it could do everything which Office 2003 allows me to do, I do believe that it is fair to claim that old version of ClarisWorks would serve virtually all of my office productivity needs and then some. (The two biggest problems in my books: it doesn't have an equation editor, and very few people could even read the files it produces.)

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Dont forget Abiword
by sappyvcv on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Dont forget Abiword"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

When you get into enterprise stuff, that's when Office shines. I have used a few of it's rarely used features that REALLY saved tons of time. I'm talking hours or days. I'll probably never use those features again, but they sure were nice to have.

Not to mention the collaboration features it has. While you may not use them, they are heavily used and very useful.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Dont forget Abiword
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Dont forget Abiword"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I do realise that there are users who need those features, and they shouldn't be denied them simply because the unwashed masses don't need them. On the other hand, the unwashed masses should not have to put up with those features either.

If we lived in a competitive marketplace, you could have it both ways. Home and small office users like myself could use a product which is on par with ClarisWorks or even Word 5.1 (if they need something more complex). Larger enterprises could use something like Office 2003, or perhaps Office 2003 with the crud for SOHO users cleaned out. You don't have to loose file compatibility either, since the representation of content can be independent of the tools used to create it.

Reply Score: 0

At last, Microsoft actually listen
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 18:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Windows and Office support for PDF has sucked so badly for years, because Microsoft cant stand competition.
As a result customers have had to put up with third rate support.
Look at the way OSX supports PDF and see how useful that is.
Thankfully Microsoft listened at last and put the customer first for once.

Reply Score: 0

RE: At last, Microsoft actually listen
by Morty on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 19:12 UTC
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you want support for PDF's on windows you have always had the option to use Adobe distiller, or whatever the PDF creation tool from Adobe are called. Forks from nearly every program if I recall correctly. I don't see the reason for MS to include everything under the sun, besides people always complain when they include functionality from 3rd party tools in their products.

If you want a free solution, use PDFCreator to generate PDF documents directly from any Windows program. http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/

Reply Score: 1

search function
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 19:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

We better all go to the MS Office site and search for "Opendocument" or "OASIS". According to Mr Jones it will then be part of the next Office release.

If just everything would be so easy.

Here's a searchlink: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/results.aspx?Scope=DC%2cEM~*~...

Reply Score: 0

RE: search function
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 01:24 UTC in reply to "search function"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It looks like folks have been using your link. The OASIS and OpenDoc searches that I did came up so fast I never even saw the screen re-load. I'm guessing that those came up so fast because they are in the server cache, but maybe my browser is set to turbo mode or somesuch nonsense.

Reply Score: 0

Write only or read/write?
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 19:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Not clear.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Only use Write only...
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 01:16 UTC in reply to "Write only or read/write?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

...that way your data gets written to disk but it's safe since no one can read it, only delete, append to, or over-write it.

Portability without usefulness!

Reply Score: 0

After all that about bloat
by Ethyriel on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 22:36 UTC
Ethyriel
Member since:
2005-07-07

I don't think that this belongs in applications, rather in the Windows print system itself. That way there's much less code duplication, and you could then generate a PDF from applications which wouldn't normally offer the functionality, like most email applications for example.

This is something I've fallen in love with under Linux (using postscript, at least with Gnome apps), and have long felt missing by default in Windows.

We'll see how they implement it, but I'm guessing it will just be an exporter.

Reply Score: 1

What about the OS supporting it?
by elmimmo on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 22:56 UTC
elmimmo
Member since:
2005-09-17

On Mac OS X it is not the application the one supporting PDF. It is the OS. You can export to PDF from absolutely all OS X applications that can print. That's the announcement MS should be releasing.

Reply Score: 1

Shooting his own feet
by dmrio on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 00:08 UTC
dmrio
Member since:
2005-08-26

Why Microsoft is making Office PDF-compatible? Does it want to kill Metro even before the launch?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Shooting his own feet
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 00:29 UTC in reply to "Shooting his own feet"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Why Microsoft is making Office PDF-compatible? Does it want to kill Metro even before the launch?

Want to be it has MS Office extentions with 'extra data needed to create higher-quality standard Metro archive documents' (ACK!)?

Reply Score: 0

transparent hype from MS as usual
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 00:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Steven Sinofsky and MS have NOT been working on PDF integration into Office 12 for a "long time now".

They are scrambling to save face after the HUGE shot Massachussets fired across their bow!

Let's not forget that there are MANY other benefits to moving away from MS Office that Massachussets will benefit from here.

Such as...

1) NO OFFICE LICENSING FEES! OPEN OFFICE IS FREE!
2) Compatibility with open standards for future document access FOR EVER
3) No more proprietary software lock-in
4) Faster, less bloated office suite making older machines useful again that could never run MS Office 12
5) Better security and stability
6) Competition for contracts will now reside on who has the best technology
7) A future of choices that will ultimately save Massachussets Billions!

Sounds good to me.

Reply Score: 0

v Typical
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 04:09 UTC
RE: Typical
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 12:57 UTC in reply to "Typical"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ever heard of a company called AMD?, people use to say things like that years ago about them. Becareful where you point your mindless commnets to, it will bite you back right.

Reply Score: 0

Except that...
by sharyanto on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 04:37 UTC
sharyanto
Member since:
2005-07-14

...PDF support in Office 12 will actually be "MS-PDF support". They will be introducing MS-specific extensions and features that are incompatible with other PDF implementations.

Happens all the time, has been their strategy since forever. MS Java and HTML support in IE are two examples...

Reply Score: 1

The revolution begins!
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 06:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

<sarcasm>
OMG! Office has PDF export by default!

The revolution has begun, brothers! Repent! Repent!
</sarcasm>

...how long has this feature been needed? Does anyone care? I couldn't really give a toss either way...

Reply Score: 0

Bad news
by getaceres on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 13:02 UTC
getaceres
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is bad news. They will use the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy with PDF.
Until now, PDF is a real cross-platform stardard. Once Microsoft starts to use it, it will become a closed format that only works well with Office. Look at HTML, look at the MS implementation of every single standard they have implementes.
This is very very bad news.

Reply Score: 1

Cool, I guess.
by marcushe on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 15:05 UTC
marcushe
Member since:
2005-09-30

This is cool news, I guess.

Buy a Mac and have native PDF support in everything.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

WordPerfect has had export to PDF since version 9, not to mention it makes significantly smaller PDF's by default than Word with Acrobat distiller, and OOo. Tabs did I mention tabs, WordPerfect also does tabs instead of opening a new window for new document. WordPerfect user since 1985.

Reply Score: 0