Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Google Microsoft

Microsoft Accuses Google Docs of Data Infidelity 178

Posted by kdawson
from the for-this-we-got-a-standard dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "For years Google has been pitching migrations from Microsoft Office to Google Docs, arguing that Docs makes Office 2003 and 2007 better because users can store Microsoft Office documents in Google's cloud and share them in their original format. Now eWeek reports that Alex Payne, director of Microsoft's online product management team, says that moving files created with Office to Google Docs results in the loss of data fidelity, including the loss of such data components as charts, styles, watermarks, fonts, tracked changes, and SmartArt. 'They are claiming that an organization can use both seamlessly,' Payne writes. 'This just isn't the case.' Meanwhile, Google defended its original 'Docs makes Office better' in a statement, noting that it has made a lot of improvements to the web editors in Docs with its recent refresh, and promising that functionality will only get better as Google integrates the DocVerse assets into Docs. 'It says a lot about Microsoft's approach to customer lock-in that the company touts its proprietary document formats, which only Microsoft software can render with true fidelity, as the reason to avoid using other products,' says a Google spokesperson."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Accuses Google Docs of Data Infidelity

Comments Filter:
  • Well, if true, I guess you could count my (rather large) organization as one that would never used Google Docs. Tracking changes alone is a feature used extensively by our business departments.

    I honestly don't think any web-based document system will can compete with MS Office (desktop version). If you've ever worked for any type of large business lately, word processing is WAY past the basic formatting options I've seen in any online suite.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well, if true, I guess you could count my (rather large) organization as one that would never used Google Docs. Tracking changes alone is a feature used extensively by our business departments.

      I honestly don't think any web-based document system will can compete with MS Office (desktop version). If you've ever worked for any type of large business lately, word processing is WAY past the basic formatting options I've seen in any online suite.

      Change tracking in the current Google Docs seems more than sufficient as you can see each change a user made in a timeline and choose to revert to any point in the timeline. You even get to do comments and such very similar to MS Word. In the end Microsoft intentionally doesn't play well with others so that they can continue to lock people into one forced solution. This is typical business strategy and can't be argued. They have done this for years with IE as well as hold the web back as a result.

      • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @08:08PM (#32223470) Journal
        I suspect the issue is preservation of "change tracking" metadata between Docs and Word, rather than change tracking in Docs, or change tracking in Word.

        I further suspect that this is a difficult thing because(in addition to probably being crufty, complex, and not as well documented as it might be), "change tracking" is partially a strictly technical problem, and partly a UI/design philosophy problem. It would be, by no means, a surprise to learn that Word and Docs have distinct approaches that simply may not be fully commensurate with one another.

        Consider the analogy of programs/UIs that are basically folder hierarchy based, vs. programs/UIs that are basically metadata "tag" based. There are some basic technical challenges you would run into if you wanted to make one approach play nicely with the other(ie. parsing the metadata properly); but most of your challenges would be more about stylistic decisions concerning how best to bodge one style into the other's conventions. Should you parse the metadata and create "virtual folders" that echo a sensible folder hierarchy organization of those files? If you have a hierarchical folder tree, how best to turn that information into meaningful tags?, etc.
        • If you have a hierarchical folder tree, how best to turn that information into meaningful tags?

          Here's how MediaWiki solves that problem: Each tag (called a Category) has its own page, but this page can itself have Categories. So for each folder, create a Category, and list the Categories corresponding to its parent folders,

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dragoniz3r (992309)
      I don't know what sort of an organization you work for, but you mention that your business departments use change tracking a lot. What about your other departments? Obviously Google Docs isn't for everyone, but I'd be more than a little surprised if the majority of your organization needed that feature, and I know for sure that my (also rather large) company doesn't (as a whole).
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by LordThyGod (1465887)
      Mabye in your world, but in our office, we've yet to hit something Google docs is not good enough at. And the ease of sharing documents, and collaborating vs MS tools is light years ahead. No contest. MS Office is too desktop bound to be useful in all situations.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jo42 (227475)

      First one has to ask why one "rather large" organization would even entrust it's confidential documents in the first place to another rather large organization which makes its living based solely on the looking at the contents of one's emails, searches, web browsing habits and documents just to deliver advertising.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dangitman (862676)

        First one has to ask why one "rather large" organization would even entrust it's confidential documents in the first place to another rather large organization which makes its living based solely on the looking at the contents of one's emails, searches, web browsing habits and documents just to deliver advertising.

        They don't do this when you get a corporate or institutional account with Google. The company/university pays for the services, and there is no advertising or data-mining.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dangitman (862676)

      I honestly don't think any web-based document system will can compete with MS Office (desktop version).

      Have you heard of this thing called the World Wide Web? It is a web-based document system that has quite a few more users than MS Office does. It's even available on the internet!

      • by tepples (727027)

        I honestly don't think any web-based document system will can compete with MS Office (desktop version).

        Have you heard of this thing called the World Wide Web? It is a web-based document system that has quite a few more users than MS Office does. It's even available on the internet!

        And there are areas where the World Wide Web falls down. For example, not all browsers fully supported rich text editing the last time I checked. Nor do all browsers support the HTML5 technologies needed for use on devices with only sporadic connections to the Internet.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Well, if true, I guess you could count my (rather large) organization as one that would never used Google Docs. Tracking changes alone is a feature used extensively by our business departments. I honestly don't think any web-based document system will can compete with MS Office (desktop version). If you've ever worked for any type of large business lately, word processing is WAY past the basic formatting options I've seen in any online suite.

      If that is so, why is MS itself releasing a stripped-down version of MS Office 2010 FREE on their cloud (presumably to compete with Google)?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        releasing a stripped-down version

        ...

        You basically answered your own question or, at least, gave the seed of the answer. Microsoft, (largely correctly), sees enterprises and organizations with complex requirements and/or a substantial Office-based legacy stack as being substantially locked in. This is why enterprise versions of Office cost as much, per seat, as they do, and why Microsoft's answer to the demand for better networked collaboration at the enterprise level is basically "It's SharePoint, and yup, that'll cost you, or nothing,

    • by zippthorne (748122) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @08:43PM (#32223704) Journal

      ...If you've ever worked for any type of large business lately, word processing is WAY past the basic formatting options I've seen in any online suite.

      If a significant fraction of the employees in your large business are wasting time on fancy formatting options, you're going to find yourself using the phrase "too big to fail" sometime in your future. Specialization is good for your business, and the fanciest needs really fall under the auspices of marketing. Let them take care of it using real tools (page layout software, for instance).

      Don't settle for every secretary, intern, and team member in the company spending 28 hours each week churning over which fancy formatting options make the minutes of the other 12 hours of meetings look the best.

      • by abigsmurf (919188)
        The point of 'fancy formatting options' isn't so that everyone spends all their time making things look pretty and not doing actual work. It's so that one person can spend a bit of extra time on a document and make it clearer and easier to work with for hundreds or thousands of other people who'll be handling it.

        Just because a document uses advanced formatting, it doesn't mean the people using it need to worry about how it works. With proper use of templates all they need to know is where to type what an
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stephanruby (542433)

      Well, if true, I guess you could count my (rather large) organization as one that would never used Google Docs. Tracking changes alone is a feature used extensively by our business departments.

      Well, I think you will prefer Google Docs/Spreadsheets then. With Google Docs/Spreadsheet, revision tracking is turned on by default. Google Docs / Spreadsheets is really a collaborative platform built from the ground up.

      You'll just have to be careful when you import any ongoing existing Word/Excel documents into Google Docs. It's only the importing process that will lose that info. After that, Google Docs/Google Spreadsheets will track any changes that are made within it.

      And if you're really worried abou

  • by Dragoniz3r (992309) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @06:16PM (#32222866)
    On the one hand, it seems anyone who's ever used a computer before in their life would half-way expect this sort of incompatibility to arise, given the drastically different natures of Google Docs and Office (Web based vs standalone app).

    On the other hand, how often do the people Google is trying to cater to actually use these features? Google Docs has always struck me as a quick and easy way to get Word documents from anywhere. And I've gotta say, not many of my office reports use fancy styles, or SmartArt. Charts occasionally, yes, but the rest of those items just strike me as "meh" and SmartArt particularly strikes me as "yeah, that was cool when I was seven."

    I dunno. It just doesn't seem to me like this is going to be a problem in common usage.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kelanden (1680090)

      On the one hand, it seems anyone who's ever used a computer before in their life would half-way expect this sort of incompatibility to arise, given the drastically different natures of Google Docs and Office (Web based vs standalone app).

      Lowering your expectations is a great way to ensure the underlying problem is never addressed . The fact that we still don't have dependable multi-vendor support for some of the world's most common document interchange formats over 15 years after they were first introduced is a bit sad, don't you think?

      Google Docs has always struck me as a quick and easy way to get Word documents from anywhere.

      Even if you only use Docs as a distribution system, its unreliable import / export conversion can be infuriating. Things as simple as line spacing or paragraph indentation frequently get broken, and I've yet

  • What fidelity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fermion (181285) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @06:17PM (#32222876) Homepage Journal
    It really is quite amazing that vendor lock in would be the defense. I stopped using MS Word because it would not read my old files accurately. I see students failing papers because the Word on one machine does not read word files created on another machine in a different version. Rather than automatically updating MS Word from MS servers, there is a complex process on has to go through to read files from different versions. It would be nice if they had an online tool to switch versions. At least with Google you are never going to be in a case where you fail a class or lose a contract because you the software won't read the document. Sure they may be data loss, but what is worse. A few mangled graphs, or no product what so ever?

    The unfortunate thing is that teachers and professors all see the student issues due to the failure of the MS products, yet continue to insist on their use, blaming it on the incompetency of the students rather than the incompetency of MS.

    MS products are good in firms that have the resources to insure all machines are homogeneous and up to date, firms that require a high level of collaborations of complex non-technical documents(This does not include most educational places). Otherwise, at least for documents, OO.org, Google docs, or LaTeX should be the norm. For spreadsheets OO.org, and especially Google, has some stuff lacking. For presentations, I think everything but Keynote pretty much sucks.

    • PDF? (Score:5, Informative)

      by toastar (573882) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @06:25PM (#32222928)

      I see students failing papers because the Word on one machine does not read word files created on another machine in a different version.

      And this is why my resume is in PDF format.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        This also works as a good filter for companies I wouldnt want to work for; if they ask you to re-send in .doc format you probably dont want to work there anyway
        • by jimicus (737525)

          Though it's a PITA if you're in an industry where finding suitable hires is handled extensively by employment agencies. Which frequently demand your CV in .doc format and simply won't even put it forward if it isn't.

      • by antdude (79039)

        And some people want it purely Word documents like job recruiter, teachers/professors, etc. :(

        Do what I do make PDF, Word doc, printouts, etc. avilable for them and pick the best for them.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      I think google docs is a fine class requirement, it's not like people will have trouble getting it to run. There's always chrome. If you're worried about privacy, use it only for google apps.

      For spreadsheets, there's gnumeric. You can even run it on Windows.

    • Re:What fidelity (Score:5, Informative)

      by grcumb (781340) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @08:56PM (#32223794) Homepage Journal

      MS products are good in firms that have the resources to insure all machines are homogeneous and up to date, firms that require a high level of collaborations of complex non-technical documents(This does not include most educational places).

      Nothing could be further from the truth. MS products are generally terrible for the creation of collaborative, complex, non-technical documents. It's just that organisations are for the most part incurious and unwilling to depart from the well-trodden path.

      This isn't exclusively Microsoft's fault. Almost without exception[*], WYSIWYG editors suck [imagicity.com].

      This is just another example of a phenomenon that remain inscrutable to hackers and geeks the world over. Generally speaking, people are incurious. They don't particularly care about the best or even the right way to do something. In fact, as long as they create the surface impression of having done something (e.g. using Word to create an unparseable, ungodly hodge-podge of visual formatting and calling it a 'complex document'), they're generally satisfied to let things lie.

      Of course, this is the fundamental principle that animates the Dilbert universe and makes it the serio-comic tragedy that it is.

      --------------
      [*] I only say 'almost' because I'm willing to admit that in some parallel universe, some Leonardo of the keyboard might conceivably have invented a WYSIWYG word processor that actually does an adequate job at non-trivial tasks. In that same alternate universe, however, I can skate across a giant butter lake wearing a frilly orange tutu, then mount my flying unicorn and float away over cotton-candy clouds to my home in an enchanted toadstool.

      • by steelfood (895457)

        I'm not sure it's a matter of being incurious. These products have reached a certain critical mass, where a business analyst from Company A can easily integrate into Company B's workflow without too much training.

        The good thing about monoculture is that you can pretty much take your knowledge and go anywhere, and likewise, as an employer, you can hire anyone and expect a certain competency in your systems on day one. There are a lot of downsides, but for a business, whose only interested in results and the

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by grcumb (781340)

          I'm not sure it's a matter of being incurious.

          You would be if you'd were curious enough to consider the issue a little more. 8^)

          These products have reached a certain critical mass, where a business analyst from Company A can easily integrate into Company B's workflow without too much training.

          'Critical mass' is exactly my point. Companies A & B call their awkward, borderline anarchic process of batting emails and Word attachments back and forth a 'Workflow'. And to some degree they're right. But they ne

      • Almost without exception, WYSIWYG editors suck. I only say 'almost' because I'm willing to admit that in some parallel universe, some Leonardo of the keyboard might conceivably have invented a WYSIWYG word processor that actually does an adequate job at non-trivial tasks.

        I seem to remember that LyX [wikipedia.org], a graphical editor for LaTeX documents, popularized What You See Is What You Mean [wikipedia.org] in word processing. Except I don't see any contributor [lyx.org] named Leonard.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kramerd (1227006)

      I see students failing papers because the Word on one machine does not read word files created on another machine in a different version.

      I'm calling bullshit.

      The specified format that teachers/professors use is generally the format that the on campus computers use (if you are in high school, the format is printed, not electronic), so if you are a student, you have access to write your paper, save it in the appropriate format, and electronically convey it to the professor using your school email address. Or if you live off campus, you can write in the format of choice, send to your school email address, show up on campus, convert it from the

      • Very much agreed.

        The whole "The Word on one machine does not read word files created on another machine in a different version" is utter bullshit. While some formatting data tends to get screwed up, I've never had this problem with one version of word to another in over 10 years.

        On the other hand, I used to get one-day extensions in high school by taking a random file, changing the extension to .doc, and then showing the teacher that the file wouldn't open =D
      • by tabrisnet (722816)

        I'm calling bullshit on your calling bullshit.

        Davenport University, 2005 (spring session), English. Online course, prof uses MS Word on Mac, I use OpenOffice.org (1.x, on WinXP).

        Things showed up different on his screen vs mine, and thus I got marked down.

        Same problem now with submitting my CV to various companies that refuse to accept it in PDF.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by RickRussellTX (755670)

      I see students failing papers because the Word on one machine does not read word files created on another machine in a different version.

      I have to call FUD on that -- Word 2007 will read file formats from before those students were born. If they are claiming that Word ate their homework, they are lying.

      Microsoft has locked out some older file formats, such as PowerPoint before Office 97, because they don't want to maintain security on the conversion code. Organizations with long memories (like the company I

      • I have to call FUD on that -- Word 2007 will read file formats from before those students were born. If they are claiming that Word ate their homework, they are lying.

        Unless Word 2003 at school won't easily recognize .docx files from Word 2007 at home, nor will the school district's IT department let the student install the import filter.

  • Err right? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Adambomb (118938) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @06:19PM (#32222888) Journal

    So this basically just states that Google Doc's data fidelity is only as good as Google makes it. So the only question businesses have is "Are Googles data fidelity policies better maintained than our own".

    If yes, use it, if no, stay internal.

    What Microsoft has to do with that question other than warping the question into an assumption to fear i sure dont know.

  • by inode_buddha (576844) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @06:25PM (#32222932) Journal
    Because you know damn well that the moment Google Docs achieved true fidelity with MS Docs, then MS would turn around and change the specs again, thereby breaking fidelity...
    • Link [wikipedia.org]

      Does Google Docs treat the year 1900 as a leap year?

      Microsoft is really really desperate to be blowing this kind of smoke.

    • Microsoft is severely limited by the installed base. What you hypothesize simply would not happen. When a new Office version supports a new format, it takes a long time for the new format to gain widespread use. By the time any such changes were important enough to matter, third parties would have them covered. Heck, that is even how it worked when the formats were completely undocumented.
  • Grasping at straws (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @06:30PM (#32222974) Homepage

    Wow, Microsoft is really digging deep on that one. I don't have any problems tracking document changes. We use the strike-through and different colored text for each contributor. So I know at a glance who changed what.

    If you need legal change tracking, you're not going to be using web-based software anyway. Besides, if there's a big call for that feature, I bet Google can figure out how to supply it.

    I think the days of desktop software are winding down. Google can be far more nimble with Docs than MSFT can be with Office. And the features that the MS guy mentioned, only small minority of users find those at all useful.

    Taking a swipe at Google just informed thousands people that you can move .docs around with GoogleDocs. Doesn't seem real bright.

  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @07:38PM (#32223304) Homepage

    Amusingly, the Technet blog entry [technet.com] has text marked as "Calibri" font, with no alternatives. Calibri is a Microsoft-only font that comes with Vista. So non-Vista systems render the text in Times Roman. Calibri is a sans-serif font, and all the other fonts in that Wordpress theme are sans-serif, so the page looks awful.

    Now that font downloading works in essentially all the current browsers, that's not necessary, at least if you stick to public-domain fonts. However, there aren't many public-domain fonts that don't suck at small type sizes. (Here's a page of mine with some downloaded fonts. [aetherltd.com]) If you have anti-aliasing on, it looks OK; if not, the text font looks ugly. Interestingly, Linux and Macs do anti-aliasing routinely, but older Windows systems do not.

    Google Docs has the same problem. Currently, it works like classic HTML; if you have the font locally, you can use it, but if not, you get some default. The stock fonts in Google Docs are the lowest common denominator: "Normal", "Normal/Serif", "Courier New", "Trebuchet", and "Verdana". If Google is going to make a big push on competing with Word, they need to do better than that. Google could make progress on this by buying twenty or so really good body fonts outright from a major font foundry, and setting them up for download on demand for Google Docs.

    • by steelfood (895457)

      Google could make progress on this by buying twenty or so really good body fonts outright from a major font foundry, and setting them up for download on demand for Google Docs.

      Or, they could go the way of Arial and just make up their own set of fonts that are close enough to the popular Microsoft ones. It would be kind of playing dirty, but who knows if Google's typeface creators could come up with some stuff that's better than what Microsoft has.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by RobertM1968 (951074)

        Google could make progress on this by buying twenty or so really good body fonts outright from a major font foundry, and setting them up for download on demand for Google Docs.

        Or, they could go the way of Arial and just make up their own set of fonts that are close enough to the popular Microsoft ones. It would be kind of playing dirty, but who knows if Google's typeface creators could come up with some stuff that's better than what Microsoft has.

        Better than Comic Sans? You're insane!!! ;-)

  • Bad Uploads (Score:4, Informative)

    by hhawk (26580) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @07:50PM (#32223364) Homepage Journal

    When you open a DOCX or DOC file in Google Docs it converts them and Google Docs doesn't have the same functionality either.

    But in terms of the data, it's not Google's fault that MS hasn't created an open standard for the document files..

    • by jbengt (874751)
      Actually from what I read, what I would consider the data is not lost at all, (except for change tracking info, if you're using that). Everything else they mentioned seems to be about formatting.
      • by hhawk (26580)

        Change tracking is important in my line of work. I know there are a few other features as well. Not mention graphics, etc.

  • says that moving files created with Office to Google Docs results in the loss of data fidelity including the loss of such data components as charts, styles, watermarks, fonts, tracked changes, and SmartArt.

    ... and it took the Office team months of hard work to achieve that.

  • Microsoft openly bragging about trying to enforce lock-in by making formats nearly impossible to implement! That's priceless.

    Wake me up when I don't need a windows license to use MS' google docs alternative.
  • Google has a point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @08:06PM (#32223454) Journal

    This just goes to show that when you use Microsofts software, you are locked to using their products and their products only. Because the format is closed, other parties will always be playing catchup and can never guarantee 100% compatibility. So Googles snarky comment at the end reveals just how lethal lock-in can be. You are locked in, with no way out.

    I can understand that you might resent loosing data in a migration or usage of another tool, but put the blame FIRST with Microsoft and THEN with yourself for having allowed yourself to get locked in.

    In any other part of your business, you would avoid lock-in at all costs. Would you tolerate that your floors could only be provided by ONE company and that it means no body else can put in a carpet without it breaking gravity? Would you allow your truck fleet to be provided by only ONE company and have that company know it? A common trick in the trucking branch is when it is time to place a new order is to invite the truck company to your place of business and have a few rival trucks parked in sight. Just a hint that you and the sales rep know there is competition out there.

    In IT? You happily invite the MS guy to give you a new deal in your all MS office that can only deal with MS formats... yeah. What is the word in the sales rep mind? Bonus? Sucker?

    Governments do this all the time, they give their divisions rules that they must buy from a supplier who has won the bid. And gosh, once they have the bid for the next couple of years, service just goes out of the window. How surprising. Especially when you just know that the quality of service under the previous contract will play no role whatsoever under the new bidding round. Ever wonder why government often does so badly in efficiency? They think lock-in is a GOOD thing. You know how you get good service from a supplier? Make him sweat as to whether your next order will be going to him. It is how the game is played.

    Really, take a long hard look at your own company. How certain are you that you can access your own info without aid from a third party? A paper archive is easy. No matter who supplies the binders, you can read it. Tape drives? How certain are you they continue to be compatible? Are your records required by law actually readable? Can you afford to ditch a supplier who doesn't make business sense anymore? Can you get the best deal if the supplier knows you need him?

    Why do you think MS sells Windows for ever higher prices? They know they got you by the short and curlies.

  • by Helldesk Hound (981604) on Saturday May 15, 2010 @08:36PM (#32223654) Homepage

    This is rich! Microsoft's software has the poorest interoperability capability of all Office Productivity suites.

    Why should MS bitch about this when it's own software cannot even open basic documents created in other office productivity suites?

  • Maybe Microsoft could pull out the Word file format specification and show us exactly what Google is doing wrong?

  • I'd've thought MS's FUD department would have come up with something better seeing as they're just about to release a competitor to Google Docs - you know, something like a coordinated campaign of spurious patent trolling, adverts etc. But fidelity? Not exactly a rallying cry for the troops. Maybe it's a case of hubris - the MS Office team have had the playing field to themselves for such a long time, they can't really contemplate a successful competitor. Sucks to be them.

  • ... because you only have to use Google Docs for about 2 minutes to run into commonly-used features from Microsoft Office that just don't exist. I create a chart and I can't format the axes, I can't put in a trend line, I can't copy and paste it into a document. The drawing tools are laughably unsophisticated. Google Docs doesn't offer feature parity with a 1993 copy of Clarisworks, much less Microsoft Office.

    I like Google Docs as a handy scratchpad to create documents accessible from anywhere and quickly e

  • I stopped using MS word whenever i could when correctly printing a Word document containing equations requiring having loaded the equation editor before printing (otherwise just garbage). Moreover i would imagine that word documents, which contain DDE-Objects (hmm Excuse-me: OLE-Objects) may have some issues when loading them on another Platform.

    *And before you ask: yes, i may have some Floppy images with Documents from 1995 on my HD, not touched sinces then; and yes, my Latex documents from back then stil

  • hahaha. after all the customers and partners they left halfway, thousands of merchants who learned their estore was going to be shut down in bcentral in one morning, zune, halo 2 multiplayer drop, this that ...

    i mean, how can they. this is the equivalent of getting caught committing adultery, and firing back by accusing others of adultery.
  • by AlgorithMan (937244) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @03:26AM (#32225818) Homepage
    When Microsoft badmouths a rival product, then you know it must be really good...

    Google should make an ad out of this, really
    "Would Microsoft badmouth Google Docs, if it wasn't really great?"
  • I use MS Office for work, NeoOffice on my Mac, and Google Docs in between. I find Docs to be fine for general purpose stuff, but I agree that it is lacking fidelity.

    Two cases in point.

    First, I needed my wife to review a rules set for a game that I produce and Google Docs seemed to be the way to do it as she was at work and I was at home. I lost all formatting, but that was easily recreated. No big deal, lesson being share docs like this when remote collaboration is required, but plan on having to r

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.

Working...