While Microsoft faces a host of challenges in maintaining its market share numbers and persuading customers to upgrade to its 2007 Office System suite of products when released in the second half of this year, its competitors face an equally daunting task of winning users away from Office 2007 and growing their numbers. Heading the list of challenges facing Microsoft is the fact that Office 2007 has a new user interface, which could require extensive staff retraining at a significant cost, as well as a new file format, which has the potential to create compatibility issues.
One thing that, as I said somewhere else, should be required (if not compulsory in some cases) is the ability to choose the standard file format used in saving files.
In most cases RTF is enough, and provides backwards compatibility and works cross-platform.
The new interface looks awful to me from the screenshots: doesen’t seem to really ease the tasks and takes more space / looks cluttered.
The functionality is similar to older versions of Office so Idon’t assume retrining would be such a big issue – in a short time users will get used to the new way of issuing commands.
But of course you can’t judge this kind of things from screenshots – so I wait to try it out (:
I already used the new interface, and I can tell you this: it looks ridicoulous, but works marvelous.
Well that’s what really matters. TY for letting me know, looking fwd to try it myself
One thing that, as I said somewhere else, should be required (if not compulsory in some cases) is the ability to choose the standard file format used in saving files.
Current versions of Office already include this functionality (and it’s carried forward in Office 2007). You can setup any of the supported formats as the default for saving documents.
Oh, really? Good, but i could never find it then…
(/me feeling _very_ dumb).
Then even more ‘blame’ on government for not using that feature. Even if i’m using windows why should I have Excel to print out a module? (happened for real, from a website of an italian ministry).
Checking Word 2003, the feature is located under Tools | Options | Save tab. At the bottom of the Save tab is the heading “Default format” with a dropdown box labeled “Save Word files as:”.
For Excel 2003, the equivalent option is located under Tools | Options | Transition tab. It’s the first item on the Transition tab labeled “Save Excel files as:”.
IIRC, in an organization, the default format can be controlled via Group Policy.
Now that
– OpenOffice.org 2.0 has the same menus of today’s MS Office and MS Office 2007 will have different UI and menus
– OpenOffice.org 2.0 is free (as beer and freedom) and multiplatform and MS Office 2007 will be not cheap, open and multiplatform
– MS Office 2007 will use another file formats, like OpenOffice.org (when compared to MS Office), and probably file imports won’t be perfect (on both programs)
-MS Office 2007 probably will not run on windows 9x and NT 4. OO.org 2.0 will run.
there are not reasons to delay migration to OpenOffice.org !
Oh there are plenty of reasons:
– OO.org uses a lot of memory and is kind of slow[er than MSO]
– OO.org lacks a lot of features MSO does that businesses and power users use
Ther eis more, bhut that’s off the top of my head.
Hey, if you just need basic formatting, OO.org is fine. However it is NOT a solution for everyone, and you are delusional if you believe so.
I think there is a bigger reason, which is this – taken directly from the article, page 2:
“But I am still tracking it and may use it in pilots,” Rosen said. “Compatibility is critical, since we receive so many documents from outside sources. We also have a Microsoft Enterprise license, so there is also not a big motive to move to OpenOffice or StarOffice.”
Having played with OpenOffice, the incompatibilities and interface differences were sufficient that the cost to change would be significant, he said, adding though that how this plays out with Office 2007 remains to be seen.
If IBM had a really robust workplace client and Sun an innovative offering that included an e-mail client and better collaboration support, even more of Microsoft’s market share could be eroded, but “those alternatives just don’t exist at this point,” McNabb said.
1) There is no viable alternative to Office – Office is more than just typing up word documents; many people here just don’t get it.
2) Incompatibility is a big issue – atleast with Office 2007, it’ll be simply a matter of savind in the Word XP/2003 format – hardly something terribly difficult.
I’m sure if we sat down with Fortune 500 companies and asked ‘what features do you require in the applications you use’, OpenOffice.org wouldn’t even come to close to meeting half of them – thats the sad reality; too bad SUN has a greater interest in acquiring poorly performing companies then running them into the ground than purchasing companies with possibly winning products, such as Wordperfect Suite, porting them to UNIX using Mainsoft and creating a bundle with Solaris.
But hey, why invest money when you can do something even easier, whine, whine, whine and whine.
1) There is no viable alternative to Office – Office is more than just typing up word documents; many people here just don’t get it.
Definitely. I didn’t get it until I helped my sister-in-law’s father grab customers from his company’s database and use that as the source for printing out hundreds of postcards with minimal effort.
I further got it when I started at my current job and statred using Outlook 2003 for my email and Word and Vision for technical documentation. The revisioning stuff was great, among other things.
Umm… open office does that.
Revisioning? yes. I really like MSO’s a lot better.
“1) There is no viable alternative to Office – Office is more than just typing up word documents; many people here just don’t get it.
2) Incompatibility is a big issue – atleast with Office 2007, it’ll be simply a matter of savind in the Word XP/2003 format – hardly something terribly difficult.
I’m sure if we sat down with Fortune 500 companies and asked ‘what features do you require in the applications you use’, OpenOffice.org wouldn’t even come to close to meeting half of them”
This is all patently untrue.
It is very bad IMO when MS astroturfers straight-out lie.
“This is all patently untrue.”
Then why aren’t any fortune 500 companies using OO.o? If it wasn’t true (which it very much is), wouldn’t these companies be chomping at the bit to switch over and save (potentially) millions of dollars in licensing costs?
“Then why aren’t any fortune 500 companies using OO.o?”
1. OpenOffice.org doesn’t come with Outlook.
2. OpenOffice.org is not compatible with many 3rd party tools, scripts, macros, etc that businesses use
3. Its not fully compatible with MSO’s file formats
4. It doesn’t cleanly integrate with active directory/group policy
In addition to this, there is cost involved in retraining, reprogramming and debugging the migration to OOo. Given the volume discount pricing larger companies receive (not to mention the warm fuzzy feeling of MS support), the license cost of MSO perhaps ends up equalling the same as a few hours of productivity loss per employee per year .. in other words – not that big of a cost with all things considered.
Without a strategic stake in the success of OOo/ODF, what company would want to voluntarily migrate to OOo/ODF? I think it is still way to early to see a lot of migration to OOo/ODF.. hopefully with the massive changes in Office, it might make companies evaluate the possibility of a migration (And look at it as a strategic move to eliminate the tie-in to a single technology vendor). We’ll see..
1. OpenOffice.org doesn’t come with Outlook.
Not a big deal. IMHO, a mail software should not be integrated with an Office suite.
2. OpenOffice.org is not compatible with many 3rd party tools, scripts, macros, etc that businesses use
The real problem is many of these macros rely heavily on VBscript i.e optimized for Microsoft Office and most of them are not standardized. This is a very bad habit that should be avoided. You have to admit OO.o did a great job to support most of these macros. This is also apply on this quote:
In addition to this, there is cost involved in retraining, reprogramming and debugging the migration to OOo. [sic]
Which is why it is a good habit for business to install OO.o along side MSO. Within time, employers will get opportunity to adapt for the change which is why Massachutsett set for an entire year to move from proprietary format to ODF.
3. Its not fully compatible with MSO’s file formats
Not OO.o developers fault because Microsoft is unwilling to release the sources of these formats. ODF was created to not depend on a single vendor. Then again, you have a great chance that doc format from Word 97 won’t be the same when opening on Word 2003.
Microsoft still have time to add ODF support though.
Edited 2006-03-05 02:10
“1. OpenOffice.org doesn’t come with Outlook.
Not a big deal. IMHO, a mail software should not be integrated with an Office suite.”
Are you sure you’ve used Outlook and not just Outlook Express? Outlook is much more than just a mail program. In fact, it’s extremely useful even if you never use it for email.
> Are you sure you’ve used Outlook and not just Outlook Express? Outlook is much more than just a mail program. In fact, it’s extremely useful even if you never use it for email.
True. But if he never worked for a company of >50 people, he might have no idea why groupware is so critical for business and thus he might have no single chance to understand all the jazz 😉
I would like to have OpenOffice.org 100% compatible with MS Office binary file formats to stop using the latter, but I don’t think this will happen this year.
I used Outlook before. Yes it does include calender, reminder and other stuffs. I agree there is no equivalent for an alternative although Thunderbird + Lighting might be a candidate. Just that kind of application should not be integrated in an Office Suite IMHO.
“I agree there is no equivalent for an alternative”
I don’t agree.
Try Evolution or Kontact or KOrganizer or even KO/Pi.
I forgot to add on Windows world. I currently use Evolution on Fedora Core 4.
“I’m sure if we sat down with Fortune 500 companies and asked ‘what features do you require in the applications you use’, OpenOffice.org wouldn’t even come to close to meeting half of them”
The bigger problem relating to this is that while MS Office may have all the features they need, most of the users have no idea where these features exist in the GUI, hence the total overhaul.
Love ’em or hate ’em, MS spends a ton of money on usability, it’s not like they’re just pulling this stuff out of their collective asses.
“Oh there are plenty of reasons:
– OO.org uses a lot of memory and is kind of slow[er than MSO]
– OO.org lacks a lot of features MSO does that businesses and power users use”
This is just not true.
Please stick to the facts.
Uh… yes it is. I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but it is quite true. The first one can be argued somewhat, the second simply can not.
– OO.org can handle huge documents (100 pages with 70 graphics included) on my Athlon 1200+, 512 MB RAM. My conclusion: OO.org does not waste memory, it might just have a larger footprint when started with an empty document.
– I never found anything that I could not do with OO.org. The advanced features just are not face-offs from MS Office like the interface is. If you want to do the advanced things do not expect from yourselves to learn how to do them in a few days.
Most businesses use Excel as a front-end for some Visual Basic scripts (all they need is a programming language), there are better databases than access, and MS Word has problems handling large documants (needs to split them and does that badly).
I know that MIGRATING is impossible for lots of businesses, but that only shows how much of a lock-in MS tries to maintain (and succeeds to maintain). Businesses have repeatedly proven that it is cheaper to go with non-MS software than being MS-dependant.
visconde_de_sabugosa: “MS Office 2007 probably will not run on windows 9x and NT 4. OO.org 2.0 will run.”
OpenOffice.org 2.0 is a terribly slow and resource intensive application on even todays multi-Ghz, multi-Gb computers.
I seriously doubt that any machine still running win 9x or Nt4 would even be able to load OpenOffice.org 2.0 without bringing such a machine to its knees.
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/search?hl=en&q=OpenOffice.org++sl…
Edited 2006-03-04 16:11
Business’s complain about retraining costs…
Seriously, in the long run (I know it’s not in their vobabulary), I think the new UI will be much more intuitive for people. It certainly looks to me like its easier to distinguish things in their new UI over the old toolbars (where everything just looks the same).
Have the file formats been made a standard yet or is Microsoft going to use them and if they are standardized, thumbs up, if not then, oh well?
Hopefully, Microsoft will update Office 2000 so if I come in contact with a document saved in the new format I will be able to use it.
Have the file formats been made a standard yet or is Microsoft going to use them and if they are standardized, thumbs up, if not then, oh well?
Hopefully, Microsoft will update Office 2000 so if I come in contact with a document saved in the new format I will be able to use it.
The formats have not yet been standardized. That process is currently ongoing.
Microsoft will be shipping updates to Office 2000, XP, and 2003 that allow them to work with the new formats. They’ll also be shipping bulk converters and other tools.
“The formats have not yet been standardized. That process is currently ongoing.”
There is no process. MS has submitted its formats to a lapdog (ECMA or something – Micorsoft minion anyway), in the hopes that people will be fooled into thinking MSXML is a “standard”.
MS XML formats will never be an ISO standard.
This is because MS XML is controlled exclusively by one body … the very antithesis of a standard.
There is no process. MS has submitted its formats to a lapdog (ECMA or something – Micorsoft minion anyway), in the hopes that people will be fooled into thinking MSXML is a “standard”.
MS XML formats will never be an ISO standard.
This is because MS XML is controlled exclusively by one body … the very antithesis of a standard.
You told the other poster to stick to the facts (even though he did). You should follow your own advice.
TC45 Status Report
http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/TC45-2006-…
“The technical committee held its first face-to-face meeting in Brussels, Belgium and began the technical work on Thursday 15 December 2005.
The technical committee includes representatives from Apple, Barclays Capital, The British Library, British Petroleum, Canon, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Pioneer, Statoil, and Toshiba.
Since January, the technical committee has held weekly 2-hour conference calls in order to advance the work.
The technical committee held its second face-to-face meeting on 31-January – 2-February 2006 in Cupertino, California. The meeting was hosted by Apple and attended by twenty-two participants.
During the meeting, the committee established guidelines and priorities for the committee’s activity over the coming year, discussed ways to develop the standard to support a broad range of conformant uses, refined the conceptual technical model and continued the review and development of the draft standard.
The committee’s next face-to-face meeting will be hosted in April by the British Library in London.”
Load of hocum.
If it isn’t exactly MS XML format as used in Office 2007, then it is of no use to Microsoft, since Office 2007 would not be compliant.
Therefore, the comittee will end up just rubber-stamping Microsoft’s format.
The committee is in Microsoft’s pocket after all.
If it isn’t exactly MS XML format as used in Office 2007, then it is of no use to Microsoft, since Office 2007 would not be compliant.
Therefore, the comittee will end up just rubber-stamping Microsoft’s format.
The committee is in Microsoft’s pocket after all.
More charges without any proof and with contradictory evidence already given in a previous post. Office isn’t shipping tomorrow. The committee has plenty of time to produce a final standard which would be included in the shipping Microsoft product. This is no different than the process with the CLI and language standards that Microsoft worked with ECMA and ISO on early in development and shipped conforming implementations.
“Microsoft will be shipping updates to Office 2000, XP, and 2003 that allow them to work with the new formats. They’ll also be shipping bulk converters and other tools.”
Still no support at all for OpenDocument format (ODF).
Huge shortcoming there.
Not only will Office 2007 be expensive, not only will it require rt-training for satff, not only is it likely to require an upgrade to OS and hardware, but it will lack a hugely vital feature – it will have no support for ODF.
That is a deal breaker.
I can’t see much adoption of Office 2007 when it involves all that pain and inadequacy.
Not only will Office 2007 be expensive, not only will it require rt-training for satff, not only is it likely to require an upgrade to OS and hardware, but it will lack a hugely vital feature – it will have no support for ODF.
OOTB ODF support is only of interest to those pushing ODF. It is in no way a vital feature.
“OOTB ODF support is only of interest to those pushing ODF. It is in no way a vital feature.”
It is absolutely a vital feature.
Companies cannot be inter-operable (for example with most of Europe) without it.
Companies have no hope of long-term storage/archival/retrieval without it.
My own product has already run in to this very problem, we have an important set of data that is currently manipulated by Access97. We are already seeing this data becoming very difficult to support, yet we have a requirement to support it for 30 years or more. Access97 is not interoperable even with later versions of Access. In fact, even putting Access97 on Windows XP machines is not interoperable with Access97 installed on Windows 2000 or Windows NT machines. How screwed is that?
We will be porting the data tables and the SQL queries and re-writing the rest soon, before support for Access97 disappears entirely in the near term. Porting it to a later version of Access is not an option – we would then be forced to do a similar exercise again and again every few years.
We therefore have no option but to move it to an open-format database. We are looking at MySQL and PostgreSQL for the back end, and possibly OO.org Base for the front end.
No Microsoft formats present themselves as being in any way appropriate to our requirement here.
All we can do is port it and regret the obstinance of some MS supporters in our organisation who insisted on using Access in the first place back in 2001, and who won the ear of management at the time.
It is absolutely a vital feature.
Companies cannot be inter-operable (for example with most of Europe) without it.
Companies have no hope of long-term storage/archival/retrieval without it.
This is false on so many fronts. ODF is not the only storage standard out there and is not required for interop. In addition, the current and upcoming Office formats also provide a mechanism for interop. Again, ODF is not vital.
“ODF is not the only storage standard out there”
It is the only one that is a standard.
“is not required for interop”
Yes, it is. In particular, it is a firm requirement for “future interop”.
“In addition, the current and upcoming Office formats also provide a mechanism for interop.”
The method that should be used for interoperability is to define a fully open, consensus, fully documented standard that can be used freely by any party that wants to implement it. Any party at all. Zero “barriers to entry”. There should be multiple parties driving the standard via consensus (rather than any one interested party in control) so that the format cannot be “hijacked”. That way any software vendor is in a position to be able to provide a solution, and any data stored in that format can still be read and manipulated even if the vendor of the application originally used to create the data is long gone.
OpenDocument is the only format out there that clearly meets all these requirements.
OpenDocument IS (most decidedly and without doubt) a firm and solid and non-negotiable requirement. As the engineer in charge of system design for a number of largish systems, I get to say what the requirements are for my projects and my products and my tools and my data. Not Microsoft, not n4cer, not any poster on OSNews or anywhere else, but me.
OpenDocument IS a requirement. Most decidedly. I would choose Microsoft Office tools if they met this requirement. Since Microsoft does not meet this requirement, and in fact chooses not to meet it, then I cannot use their product. Comprendez, Microsoft?
Microsoft has created quite a problem and significant cost for me with their refusal to properly support open standards, and their attempts to lock people in. The very best way for me to solve this problem and to avoid it happening again in the future is to stay completely clear of Microsoft products.
Edited 2006-03-05 09:24
Don’t get blinded by the “standards” argument. Standards are only useful if they are widely used and supported by different vendors, plattform independent, ridig and not restricted by licences (even royalty free ones).
Even if MS XML becomes an ISO/ECMA standard, MS can pull the old “incompatibility trick” by introducing a new format with its next Office version. Such a new format would stomp the old one into oblivion (even if it is an ISO / ECMA standard) by the simple fact that there is always a mass of users jumping to the new formats and then start sending documents around – not caring about standards or older versions – so everybody is practically forced to upgrade. This has happend several times in the past. Or was there any other reason to upgrade to Office 2000, XP, 2003, …?
The sole purpose of a standard is free data interchange without any restrictions to vendors or platforms, freeing people from becoming dependent on single vendors.
The sole purpose of MS is gaining market share (or rather: not losing it), making money and stay in a power position. Somebody must be really naive to believe MS is going to make anything a standard in the sense of freeing people from being independen of MS ..
The best thing to do: Simply ignoring Office2007 (and save a lot of money and time).
Even if MS XML becomes an ISO/ECMA standard, MS can pull the old “incompatibility trick” by introducing a new format with its next Office version.
They already do. Office 2007 also has DRM. Only Office can open DRMed documents. DRM is just Yet Another propietary format which uses encryption to ensure that nobody else reverse engineers the format so they can keep away users from being able to choose other products.
Welcome to the world of the closed and no interoperable .doc format….again
They already do. Office 2007 also has DRM. Only Office can open DRMed documents. DRM is just Yet Another propietary format which uses encryption to ensure that nobody else reverse engineers the format so they can keep away users from being able to choose other products.
Welcome to the world of the closed and no interoperable .doc format….again
The same applies to PDF then, which also supports DRM.
The fact is that it’s an optional feature that some businesses actually find useful for keeping sensitive data from leaking out beyond those trusted to have it. It’s not something you’d use if your aim is wide distribution. Also, the very people that use it are free to choose whatever product or format they want at any time as they have control over how and when the rights management is applied. They also wouldn’t want just anybody to be able to read the data as that’s the whole point — only they can read it until they choose to release it to a wider audience.
Edited 2006-03-04 19:06
Even if MS XML becomes an ISO/ECMA standard, MS can pull the old “incompatibility trick” by introducing a new format with its next Office version. Such a new format would stomp the old one into oblivion (even if it is an ISO / ECMA standard) by the simple fact that there is always a mass of users jumping to the new formats and then start sending documents around – not caring about standards or older versions – so everybody is practically forced to upgrade. This has happend several times in the past. Or was there any other reason to upgrade to Office 2000, XP, 2003, …?
Microsoft has only changed formats when it was necessary to support new features. Many of the formats in Office have remained the same for years and through several versions. They haven’t changed formats just to change formats.
RE: Standards
Microsoft has already stated that one of the reasons for moving to XML is to make it easier to support new capabilities. You can bet on the format changing (or rather additions made) at some point, and in some way when it becomes necessary to support new functionality, but you have nothing to support the notion that they wouldn’t submit the changes back to ECMA/ISO. Again, the situation is no different than with CLI and the language standards where MS has submitted revisions to ECMA/ISO while developing new versions. One of the jobs of the TC45 committee is making sure new revisions are backward compatible.
Even if the Office 12 formats were the only ones submitted for the standard, they aren’t going anywhere even with the release of a new revision. If your aim is compatibility, you can stick with the standard version. Plus, the new version would also be XML and would be trivial to process.
>OpenOffice.org 2.0 has the same menus of today’s MS >Office and MS Office 2007 will have different UI and
>menus
Which means it’s just as obsolete, this is 2006 not 1997.
>OpenOffice.org 2.0 is free (as beer and freedom) and
>multiplatform and MS Office 2007 will be not cheap, >open and multiplatform
Well you get what you pay for. Free isn’t always good didn’t your parents teach you that?
What does freedom have to do with anything? Let people make their own choice if they want to buy a quality product or a cheap rip-off product. That is freedom.
>MS Office 2007 will use another file formats, like
>OpenOffice.org (when compared to MS Office), and
>probably file imports won’t be perfect (on both
>programs)
OpenOffice is not yet worthy of a quality product in a lot of ways, but I don’t have problems sending my resume in .doc format and never have. It still supports that and the new XML formats.
>MS Office 2007 probably will not run on windows 9x
>and NT 4. OO.org 2.0 will run.
Well being that Windows 9x for the most part is 8-10 years old, people should update their computer or stick with the old versions of office that is already out.
The problem I have with OpenOffice is that it isn’t up to the level of the older office programs and they haven’t innovated much and just followed Office instead now MS office is the one innovating.
Open source was nice when it wasn’t a political movement about freedom. Back in the old days people worked hard to make software to make a difference.
Now people complain about freedom and nobody has any idea what they are talking about. Freedom of what?
Microsoft wants money just like every other company and money treated right is not wrong. What is wrong is some deliusional idea that you are freeing the world from something that is all in your head.
The 60’s are over, get over it and move on.
Piss off you MS hack.
Mmmm
OK Open Office can’t do everything that MS Office does, as yet the database is nothing like as good as Access and it misses other useful functionality. However, with Open Office the price is right and for many users even business users it’s more than good enough.
At work we still use an older version of MS Office (and very good it is too) will we be upgrading to MS Office 2007 – no our current version is good enough. I’m sure that this is true of many businesses, in the home environment – on new PCs Open Office is fine and anyway the decent versions of MS Office aren’t supplied oem or on student licenses etc. you might as well have Open Office.
Open Office will also get better – it has already by the time many business need to upgrade Open Office may well have all the functionality they need.
I think MS is not going to find this an easy sell
Ok I have the latest beta of Office 2007 installed and have done some extensive testing of the software. It is really slow in some tasks but it’s still a beta so the speed will most likelly improve. However the thing that would not is the interface. I find the new interface somewhat usefull in Powerpoint but a HUGE pain in the but when it comes to Excel and Word ( with Excel being the bigger problem ). Just like with IE 7 pretty much all the buttons are rearranged and the drop down menues are gone. This might work fine for users whore are just finding out about computers but I would guess that many corporations would not upgrade to 2007. Back when XP came out we simply skipped the version because it was nothing new yet slower than 2000. Well now there are a lot of new things ( too many if you ask me ) and the software runs increadibly slow compared to the previous version ( 2003 ). MS is trying to push through the whole Vista look but what they have achived with Office 2007 is that a secretary or an Office worker with average IQ would end up relearning skills vital for their job.
The other big problem is the file format change but this is an easy fix. You can simply chose to save the file in a different format. I haven’t found any customization buttons yet but if MS decides to add some then maybe there would be a way to setup a different default file format.
PS. To be fair to MS a restart of the office applications is really snappy just like with VS 2005 but both this and the slower startup is due to the switch over to .net . There are quite a few improvements in direction of keeping your files safe and group work/ editing of files that belong to a coworker is vastly improved. However, when the world is used to pants you can’t really start selling skirts and expect them to buy them ( figurativelly speaking ).
EDIT: There is an option to change settings only now it is under the File menu ( the only drop down menu left )
Edited 2006-03-04 10:56
This thread is looking pretty fanboyish…almost all the comments arguing against MSOffice have been modded up, yet virtually all that stayed on topic are at 1’s.
OO.o is simply not a viable alternative to MSO…if it was, then wouldn’t more (large) companies be using it?
As far as “standardizing” a document format, who the hell really cares about this? MSO is pretty much the de factor standard given that 99% of the companies on the planet use it.
“OO.o is simply not a viable alternative to MSO”.
Yes it is.
MSO is simplay not a viable alternative … period. It is not even interoperable with itself from just a few years back.
Companies cannot afford incompatibilities with their own data formated by MSO a few years ago and be forced to port that data every few years just because Microsoft wants to lock its customers in.
The only viable alternative is a truly open document format that anyone may implement, and most especially one that is not controlled by Microsoft.
“As far as “standardizing” a document format, who the hell really cares about this?”
I care about this. MSO format incompatibility with other systems and even with other versions of MSO have cost my projects dearly (in terms of development time and re-work that should not have been necessary). I do not like to use “productivity” applications that cost me in lost “productivity” – I would much rather use a less expensive alternative with zero loss of productivity (because that alternative stuck to open standards).
“MSO is pretty much the de factor standard given that 99% of the companies on the planet use it.”
Not true. Not one teeny tiny bit true. MSO is a million miles off being a standard of any sort.
For a start, MSO format is not documented anywhere. Ipso facto, it is not a standard.
Secondly – only one vendor provides MSO. Therefore by definition it is not a standard product. It is most decidely not like (for example) the standard CD format – where it does not matter which company makes the CD or the player it will nevertheless interoperate and work correctly. Even if Sony (as an example) completely went bust, people could still play their CD collections in the event their Sony CD player broke down by buying a CD player from another company (eg Sanyo). MSO is the antithesis of a standard viewed in that sense – since MSO has a single-source supplier.
But most importantly, most decidedly “99% of the companies on the planet” do not all use the same version of MSO as each other, and MSO is not interoperable even with earlier versions of itself. Let alone other platforms (other than Windows) – MSO does not even meet any sort of criteria of interoperability even within just the Windows platform.
Edited 2006-03-05 11:06
“Microsoft has only changed formats when it was necessary to support new features.”
Why are MS supporters so naive and don’t look beyond the marketing? Its called LOCK-IN – why don’t people understand this horrible feature.
Most of the stuff in MSO is only for a minority % of the user base. Most of the people use these tools for very very simple letters and spreadsheets and they would only use powerpoint to view joke presentations sent via email.
I don’t see how anyone can justify buying any version of MSO for 95% of the organisation. Collaboration features are only used between a few people and if they are wise they would only distribute the finished in PDF so why the need to buy MSO for all staff???? OO2_0 does everything for the 95%+. I would count myself in the 95% but use a lot more features than most.
One feature of OO i really like is that i only open OO once, i don’t have to open excel/powerpoint/base/drawing separately, i just go to the file menu and open or create a new document of the format i choose and then the relevant program is opened. Whereas in MSO i have to Open Word, then Excel, then Powerpoint thereby making OO a better intergrated package than MSO.
I’ve never not been able to do something in OO that I could do in MSO. Mind you images in documents stay put in OO whereas its less reliable in Word.
Pfft. Either I’ll keep what I’ve got (Office 2003), or switch to OO.org. Either way, it won’t cost me a dime.
I do pity the poor companies that have the Microsoft nose ring. They will have no chice but to upgrade, then pay for the additional training costs.
“The new user interface… will slow up adoption significantly,”??
I’m beta tester since December 2005 and all I can say is that it looks like somebody in MS headquarter decided to screw workflow. As avid MS Word user I have setup toolbars exactly the way I want them – the top one for most often used commands that I don’t want to access via hotkeys and the bootom one for macros.
In MS Word 2007 I have to switch between tabs all the time just to reach buttons I need. And I even have to switch to a special tab where my macros are. This plain sucks.
And not all of MS Office family applications share this new look as of now. This is quite confusing, but well… I can live with that.
Of course, there are some nice improvements over MS Office 2003. Some of them were definitely adopted from OpenOffice.org