“A comprehensive feature-by-feature guide to Windows Vista. With contributions from people who actually worked on the product, this is the definitive resource to learn about Windows Vista. The Windows Vista Product Guide is available in the new Microsoft Word 2007 or the new XPS format.”
Who don’t want to download the document and/or have nothing installed to view it with, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
And enough with the ‘Windows XP SP3’ crap, ok ?
I know, I am bored with that one too.
I have used Vista extensively, and I can assure you, it is a lot more than a service pack.
If I were you, I would hold off and use XP service pack three instead !
It’s boring, that after an OS was developed for 5 years, still people _have_ to argue about wether it is superiour to a service pack or not.
Oh well, no! It’s kinda funny!
Well, i have one thing to say, only one: There’s no post about Windows Vista without a comment with the link to news features in Vista at wikipedia.
Mod me down if you want 😉
I don’t have Windows Vista. Could someone please post this documents as PDF or .doc?
Windows XP can read XPS with an add-on that the system automatically downloads and installs for you (with your permission of course).
A new period of OS?Instead of nowaday working mode?
<sarcasm>Oh look, it’s conveniently available in docx and xps.</sarcasm>
Mod parent up even further. Some points deserve more than just 5.
Maybe they were afraid that Adobe would be outraged and threaten to sue them if they posted it in PDF – they way they did when MS added a save to PDF to Word 2007.
Except that Adobe never did such a thing. It was merely newspaper spin. Adobe never made any threat in regard to PDF. The only thing Adobe said was MS would be sued _if_ MS did something illegal. They never threatened with sueing over the PDF feature.
>sued _if_ MS did something illegal
Hmmmm…I’m sorry but to me this is nebulous for-the-newspapers spin. At this point MS’s intentions with XPS and PDF are clear. Why doesn’t Adobe just say exactly what they believe might be illegal? My guess is it’s because they are still feeling around for what they could get a court – specifically in the EU to agree with them on.
The facts are that “Save to PDF” is the #1 requested feature of word. MS added it (along with XPS). Adobe demanded that they remove the feature. I guess they considered it “something illegal”. (It is an open to implement format as long as Adobe doesn’t feel that you will be taking money (ie corporate Acrobat buyers) away from them.) You could make a strong case that the EU would have agreed with them on this. Okay. Save to PDF doesn’t come with the Word anymore. This is Adobe’s doing. They also wanted MS to charge for the (still existing) add on AND for the ability to save to XPS! The last point is pure (attempted) blackmail.
The bottom line is they don’t want any portable format shipping with Word. The bizarre thing to me is that no one would have taken a second look at XPS if Save to PDF would have been an option. I can’t imagine that XPS is going anywhere but if does – its Abobe’s doing.
The only one claiming Adobe demanded “Save to PDF” removed is an unidentified source within Microsoft claiming the Adobe CEO sent a letter. Adobe have been deliberately closelipped about this, adding to the confusion.
But fact is, there’s no evidence for such claims – just a lot of rumours, which everybody seems to brew on.
Well in the WSJ article about it the source in MS wasn’t unidentified. It was Brad Smith their general counsel. Also, in that article no one from Adobe denied it which seems strange since it doesn’t reflect too well. I agree that they have added to the confusion but why deliberate tightlipness? That’s even more confusing. If it isn’t true they need to say so.
I would submit this as a bit of evidence: I saw and used the Save to PDF feature in Office 2007. It is a bit too much, even as MS conspiracy theories go, to say that they put it in there and then took it out just to plant this story about Adobe. It is possible but I think not. Particularly because Adobe has gone to the EU to complain about XPS.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061015-7992.html
So clearly they aren’t happy with MS moving into this space at all. Like the authors of linked article – I’m not sure they are handling it the right way.
Edit = changed happen to happy
Edited 2006-11-30 19:10
“The only one claiming Adobe demanded “Save to PDF” removed is an unidentified source within Microsoft claiming the Adobe CEO sent a letter. Adobe have been deliberately closelipped about this, adding to the confusion.
But fact is, there’s no evidence for such claims – just a lot of rumours, which everybody seems to brew on.”
Actually no. I am looking for the link again. It was presented to the EU that MS would be abusing it’s monopoly again by including PDF, so rather then get another fine they decided to pull it out at Adobe’s request. This was presented about the same time McAfee and Symantec screamed murder that there virus would no longer work since they could not access the kernel. (Okay..just a bit of sarcasm at the end but I think you will know what I meant)
openoffice now supports the new office formats, there’s also this:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=941B3470-3…
Oh great! let’s go out and buy Office 2007 just to read Vista’s new features! Sure thing!… I laugh at Microsoft marketing methods. Really stupid actually.
Oh great! let’s go out and buy Office 2007 just to read Vista’s new features! Sure thing!… I laugh at Microsoft marketing methods. Really stupid actually.
You don’t need Office 2007 or Vista to view XPS files:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/default.mspx
Though I guess you DO need some version of Windows (unless someone has built an XPS viewer for Windows), which is really kind of dumb … if you want to advertise features for your new OS, why the hell would you want to prevent people using competing OS’s from reading the document?
Excellent point. I would mod you up twice, if I could. This is just another one of the examples of the way Microsoft irritates me.
“if you want to advertise features for your new OS, why the hell would you want to prevent people using competing OS’s from reading the document?”
I’m guessing their real target is Windows XP users. It took them a while to get people to switch to XP in the first place.
Also, I think it is marketing 101. The leader denies the existence of competition. The competition always references the leader. That is why you have the I’m a Mac commercials from Mac.
I’m actually surprised that MS hasn’t hired on the I’m a PC guy. Have him blab about how great Vista is. I promise you that it would work.
Yeah, except he’s a pretty dedicated Mac user in real life
if you want to advertise features for your new OS, why the hell would you want to prevent people using competing OS’s from reading the document?
MS have given up on competing OS users. Secretly they know that having tried a decent OS, your average user would rather stick pins in their eyes before wrecking their computer with Vista ;o)
Edited 2006-11-30 11:11
Though I guess you DO need some version of Windows (unless someone has built an XPS viewer for Windows), which is really kind of dumb … if you want to advertise features for your new OS, why the hell would you want to prevent people using competing OS’s from reading the document?
Because they don’t really care? Aiming to Windows users is a good idea, because you’re aiming to the biggest portion of the market share. They’re in such a position that don’t really care about the competition.
And tell me: When did Microsoft became format and standards respectful? They have “enhanced” versions of pretty much any already existing format or standard (MSIL, XSS, etc).
Yes, but they could still provide it as a simple .doc for XP users. Is it not MS-proprietary enough now, after OOo?
//Is it not MS-proprietary enough now, after OOo?//
That is about the size of it, it would seem.
Microsoft’s official position “We won’t support ODF because there is no demand” and then later “we will support ODF only by translation to and from OOXML first” is transparently silly.
Now that WordPerfect is going to support ODF:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6047809291.html
… and the OpenDocument Foundation itself is making a plugin for MS Office that will read and write direct to ODF and not have to go via OOXML at all, Microsoft’s position on these attempted lock-in formats looks sillier and sillier by the day.
XPS is even more irrelevant than OOXML is.
This is “spyware” video codecs territory.
MS just wants you to install XPS plugin and .Net3. I need to waste about a gig of space on my harddrive and to have Windows XP SP2, or Vista to read the advertisement.
Creepy.
MS just wants you to install XPS plugin and .Net3.
Exactly. While there is nothing inherently evil in that desire, I think most technology and format lock-ins started just as innocently. Remember, Microsoft still is a monopoly and will be one for the foreseeable future.
XPS is an ECMA format. It’s XML-based. So, it’s no more of a “format lock-in” than ODF.
XPS is an ECMA format. It’s XML-based. So, it’s no more of a “format lock-in” than ODF
You got to be kidding. XML doesn’t prevent format lock-in, as it authorizes blobs and other binaries inside.
ECMA doesn’t prevent lock-in either.
You can tell if one XML format has no lock-in from the DTD (and specs), not just because it’s XML.
Read for comprehension next time. I didn’t say that being XML-based prevents lock-in. I said “it’s no more of a ‘format lock-in’ than ODF”. Do you understand the distinction?
EMCA standards are not open standards per default.
EMCA standards are not open standards per default.
Well, it’s not clear what you mean by “open”. That sounds like a flimsy canard to attack XPS — and it’s essentially meaningless, given the following…
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpslicense.mspx
“Microsoft freely licenses XPS technology to encourage its use as general-purpose documents. Microsoft grants a royalty-free copyright license to copy, display, and distribute the XML Paper Specification. Microsoft also grants a royalty-free patent license to read, write and render XPS Documents. Execution of the licenses is straightforward and does not require the company to sign and return the license agreement. There is a requirement that any XPS implementation that is distributed, licensed or sold contain a notice in the source code of the implementation indicating that Microsoft may have intellectual property associated with the implementation and to provide a link to where the license may be obtained from Microsoft. The patent license also includes a covenant not to sue provision for companies engaged in certain businesses; the provision contents and reasoning are explained below.
It also contains a Covenant Not To Sue Provision. So, really, your definition of “open” is meaningless.
//There is a requirement that any XPS implementation that is distributed, licensed or sold contain a notice in the source code of the implementation indicating that Microsoft may have intellectual property associated with the implementation and to provide a link to where the license may be obtained from Microsoft.//
AFAIK, there is actually a little bit more to this than Microsoft state here. Basically, one is not allowed to “re-license”. This restriction is squarely aimed at preventing any open source implementation of XPS. That is, one cannot write a GPL version of XPS, because the GPL explicitly states that one must allow redistribution of the same rights to the software as one received originally … that is, one must re-distribute the same rights as one received oneself.
Since XPS is explicitly licensed as “no GPL implementation allowed”, then it is not cross-platform.
Since it is intentionally not cross-platform, IMO that means it should never be accepted as a standard. I’m sure that most standards bodies would see it that way as well.
Have you read this seriously read this.
Please Service Pack is not insulting enough.
Seriously break it down into what excites you!
Lets spend a little time picking out some gems.
“Windows Media Player 11, which is also available on Windows XP” – Maybe not upgrade for that.
“Windows Internet Explorer 7 is also available for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003” – Maybe not for that.
“Microsoft is introducing a number of Digital Rights Management and content-protection features in Windows ” – Now I want that content-protection sounds great.
Seriously read it, there is improvements there, any must have killer features.
Edited 2006-11-30 04:52
Really look at the “New and upgraded applications” because most of those should be packages with an OS and don’t have better alternatives.
Really seriously look what those “users” who got home have as an upgrade path, have the Wiki entry is gone.
Seriously look at the biggest waste of space “Windows XP features excluded” when most are just repackaged old apps under new apps.
a company with 70,000 people did this, in over five years.
Edited 2006-11-30 05:33
What inspires Microsoft to reinvent the wheel for everything? PDF has been around for years and it works fine. There is no reason for another rival format.
Or is XPS a totally different document format?
Enlighten me.
They don’t control PDF as well as they do with the .doc format: if they can control your data they have absolute control on what OS and Office software you’re going to use. In other words, the usual abuse of monopoly game they’ve been playing during all of these years. As simple as that.
rehdon
It’s different. PDF is pretty portable. XPS is readable on a tiny (ableit growing) minority of users.
Much better! ;o)
XPS is better than PDF.
http://www.amyuni.com/blog/?p=8
//XPS is better than PDF.
http://www.amyuni.com/blog/?p=8 //
That page is weird. XPS and PDF achieve similar things, but ODF is a quite different format for a quite different purpose.
PDF beats XPS easily in several major, major areas that are not considered by the linked page:
(1) PDF is open to be implemented,
(2) PDF is cross-platform, and
(3) PDF is supported (in terms of both applications and in the amount of existing data in that format) far, far more widely than XPS.
Those three facts alone are killer facts for the XPS format.
// (1) PDF is open to be implemented,
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpsspec.mspx
So is XPS. Here’s the full spec.
So is XPS. Here’s the full spec.
Indirect it’s not because you can’t install the viewer on a platform other than windows.
Is this what we are going to see spin-off from the MS-Novell deal?
// Indirect it’s not because you can’t install the viewer on a platform other than windows.
Finding an XP computer to print it isn’t hard.
And if you don’t want to, you could always rename it to zip, extract the files and read the raw xml.
It still leads to information presentation loss, since I cannot get the real print, but only raw information.
Finding an XP computer will be increasingly difficult, and also proves the OP’s point: XPS isn’t particularly cross-platform. If it was, we wouldn’t need a XP-machine, right?
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
I am not whining. I merely told the poster that his point didn’t make the OP’s point invalid.
It’s not written in a standard so we can’t read it.
And when a would-be document standard include things like retaining print spooling informations, I wonder how you could implement it while being portable and multiplatform.
lol. the spec is wrapped in a self extracting exe rather a zip. furthermore the format of the spec is…. xps! microsoft is hilarious. you have to have windows, to have a chance of implementing xps on an alt OS.
No, it’s not. It’s an openly documented proprietary standard.
yeah, even my NeXT can read PDFs fine… Loads of older systems will probably never get support for XPS but can view (and sometimes edit/create) PDFs just fine.
Try to be far more critic next time :
– A blog is everything except an authority on the matter
– what advantage is it to be “XML based extensible format” ? This is pretty stupid, as the only lack of PDF here is not being XML, which is irrelevant.
– XPS is not portable, and surely not multiplatform : this is a flat lie
– Ability to edit document is pretty stupid, but even then, the table is wrong on that matter for PDF
– Retaining print job information … What does this have to do in a document exactly ? And XPS supports this nonsense !!
– Unicode only support for multinational character sets is considered poor support !
– It says PDF doesn’t support remote document printing !!
– …
Anyway, the author or the table doesn’t say that XPS is better than PDF at all, that’s just your wishful thinking.
“- XPS is not portable, and surely not multiplatform : this is a flat lie ”
The format is open to be implemented which means you can start making an XPS viewer on the platform of your choice today!
The format is open to be implemented which means you can start making an XPS viewer on the platform of your choice today!
Than whereis the source code?
What source code?
Open format != open [application] source.
All the documentation is there and entirely open. Feel free to write your own XPS viewer, just as other coders have written PDF viewers, HTML/web browsers, text editors, and the like.
“Than whereis the source code?”
The same could be said for PDF. Adobe does not have open source code for PDF, what they have is the spec for PDF that is open. People have used the spec to make other software that can read and write PDF files. You can do the same thing for XPS. The format is open, not the source code. That means you can implement it into your project if you so desire, just as so many before you have implemented PDF.
The format is open to be implemented which means you can start making an XPS viewer on the platform of your choice today!
You just described an open format. You still did not described a portable or multiplatform format.
Portable and multiplatform apply to the code.
So for now, it’s still a flat lie that XPS is portable, and even more blatant lie that it’s multiplatform.
The standard is not open. It is a openly documented proprietary standard. Being ECMA does not make it an open standard, and being an open standard does not make the standard an ECMA standard.
An open standard will however most often be an ISO-standard.
One benefit is that it is much easier to extract ‘protected’ fonts from the XPS files. I just downloaded the spec today and I’ve already got a working font extractor.
– Just another example,
shoot yourself in the foot by supporting a non-standard file format. PDF, it’s the STANDARD in the business world, and this one docx isn’t going to make my manager buy Office 2007, but, it will piss him off.
What a tangled web we weave…
//it’s the STANDARD in the business world//
Careful what you mean by that word “standard”.
Standards are set by standards bodies, not by the majority of useage in any context … even if that context is the “business world” (read American businesses).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_bodies
One such standards-setting body is the ISO/IEC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standar…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Electrotechnical_Commiss…
For example, it is often claimed that Microsoft’s .doc is the current standard format for digital storage of documents. That is not actually so. The standard format is OpenDocument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
“OpenDocument or ODF, short for the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications, is an open format for saving and exchanging office documents such as memos, reports, books, spreadsheets, databases, charts, and presentations. This standard was developed by the OASIS industry consortium and based upon the XML format originally created by OpenOffice.org. ODF was approved as an OASIS standard on May 1, 2005, and was approved for release as an ISO and IEC International Standard (ISO/IEC 26300) on May 8, 2006.”
So, to re-iterate, that word “standard” does not necessarily mean “what everyone uses”.
Edited 2006-11-30 12:55
Actually, if you have something that many or everybody uses then that thing would be a “de-facto standard”. And just because a standard has been set by a standard body, doesn’t mean the standard will prevail, nor that the standard is usable by others. Especially ECMA-standards can be dangerous since they tend to be patent-encumbered.
Hmm.. what’s the offensive about that post?
Corporate Desktop: “You do not have sufficient privileges to complete this installation…”
You got to the the “Microsoft Genius”, hey, I found another Oxymoron!
Hyper, Who Cares!
I can’t read the document, And I’m running WinXP with Microsoft Word! On a Corporate Microsoft Desktop the document is UNREADABLE, maybe for MONTHS!
You should not be reading this stuff while you are at work, because you have other things to do
On the other hand, if your work is related to Vista in your company then i guess you should have full access rights to your machine
Edited 2006-11-30 15:21
Umm, no, it’s not. There is an XPS reader that has been available for some time now.
The guide does exist in PDF format.
I found this link: http://tinyurl.com/yahj7z
Microsoft is manipulating you guys into doing whatever it wants. That’s what happens when you hitch your cart to a huge monopoly power that then decides for you what’s best for you. They’re slapping you around like their little bitch. Have fun! 🙂
IHMO it is irrelevant if MS produces a new format as open standard or not. The question is why XPS was created in the first place.
Does it solve some previously unresolved user problems?
MS surly will not create and propagate a new format just for the users benefit but for business reasons. XPS is a means to threaten Adope and take PDF out of the equation and hence kill another cross-plattform format which makes user more independent of Windows.
And it’s so easy for MS to do that, isn’t it? Because there are always enough naive idiots who will use new MS formats such as XPS to distribute contents, hence forcing others to us XPS, too, etc. etc (installing a simple reader already implies acceptance of the format and hence is a win for MS). We all know that game: it was one of MS major weapons to kill other applications in the office space and force their own customers to upgrade – or in the case of MSXML to prevent people to migrate to ODF.