Microsoft Office 2007 to Support ODF - But Not OOXML 377
Andy Updegrove writes "About two hours ago, Microsoft announced that it will update Office 2007 to natively support ODF 1.1, but not to implement its own OOXML format. Not until Office 14 is released (no date given so far for that) will anyone be able to buy an OOXML ISO-compliant version. Why will Microsoft do this after so many years of refusal? Perhaps because the only way it can deliver a product to government customers that meets an ISO/IEC document format standard is by finally taking the plunge, and supporting 'that other format.' Still, many questions remain, such as when this upgrade will actually be released, how good a job it will do, and whether the API Microsoft has said it will make available to permit developers to supply 'save to ODF' default plugins will be supported by a patent non-assertion promise allowing implementations under the GPL (the upgrade supplied by Microsoft will not allow ODF as the default setting)."
Embrace and Extend (Score:5, Insightful)
ITSATRAP! (Score:2)
Doesn't even need to be patent encumbered (Score:5, Insightful)
(or of course like Orcs in Warcraft III we really really have misunderstood them ...).
Andy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:5, Insightful)
Hm
Look, I have to wonder if such a strategy wouldn't backfire on Microsoft in the long run. I would assume the customer base that wants this feature is aware of the tricks MS might try to play, otherwise why would they be dragging MS (kicking and screaming) towards open formats?
And yet, this whole issue does seem to bear a similarity to the perfunctory implementation of support for POSIX standards in Windows NT many years ago. I'm not up on the details, but as I recall MS implemented it merely to appease government customers who wanted it as a condition of running NT in their environments. Could ODF support be the same? Not an attempt to E^3 (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) ODF, but just a temporary measure to maintain compliance with government mandates until their own OOXML monster is released on the world?
FUD (Score:3, Informative)
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
for quite some time...
Note the contributors...
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/#contributors [sourceforge.net]
Whilst Microsoft has funded this project, it was not directly developed by microsoft, it has been developed by independent developers, as it is open source, anyone can inspect the code, including you.
There has been so much disinformation about the whole OOXML/ODF its really been quite impressive.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means that all the administration costs, travel expenses, bribe money, etc that they spent to have the OOXML standard pushed through was just thrown away for nothing, even though they got what they were aiming for.
Talk about mismanagement. Hey Ballmer, why don't you try hitting yourself with the chair this time. Might knock some sense into you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, they didn't put too much into that, they just created an EU investigation exclusively for that happening, and oppened guard for lots of other monopoly abuse and criminal (bribery) prosecutions. No too much indeed.
In fact, they did have nothing to gain, but everything to lose.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7412417.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Ballmer not, Gates hot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
April Fools? (Score:4, Insightful)
You could be right (Score:3, Funny)
Typical Tactic (Score:5, Interesting)
So, in case anyone was still thinking that OOXML being confirmed as a standard wasn't a bad thing...
And as far as supporting ODF goes, I'd applaud Microsoft for taking a step in the right direction if they weren't constantly declaring themselves the victors over Open Source. I only wonder how they'll spin this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Typical Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they are begrudgingly supporting ODF since their customers are demanding it, but making the implementation just irritating enough (and, I would guess, incompatible with many features of Office) that users will be inclined to just work in docx (which OpenOffice and others cannot read perfectly, if at all).
Re:Typical Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously Microsoft is counting on this to let them sell MS Office to governments as "ISO compatible" until they can properly implement the OOXML standard, while still trying to keep everyone using their proprietary formats. It's a risky gamble, and with Office 14 having no announced release date, not one I'd be comfortable making.
Microsoft IS allowing ODF to be the default (Score:3, Informative)
"And of course users can set ODF to be the default format if they wish, the same way they would for other Word, Excel or PowerPoint formats."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source is not a product. It is not a company. It is not an individual. It is not a group. It is not an entity. Open Source is a development model.
The only way that Microsoft could be "victorious" over Open Source is if they were to originate a superior development model that attracted more developers to it.
Since that has not happened, I'm really not sure what sort o
Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Victory (Score:5, Informative)
Sort of like how SCO still claims to own UNIX when the Open group owns the trademark, and Novell owns the copyrights.
Re:Victory (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you break the standard in the process of adding an extension, then you are in violation of the standard.
Re:Victory (Score:4, Informative)
So there's what you ask from MS Office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that could also be grounds for a lawsuit if they screw it up badly enough....
Re:Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
i'm not denying implementing odf is a bad decision in the eyes of the share-holders. announcing support for odf is however something subtly different. maybe microsoft's scared of repercussions because of the corruption in the standardisation process for ooxml.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like they did when Microsoft came up with a buggy and mangled implementation of HTML?
Much as I wish you were right...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Victory (Score:4, Informative)
Larger question (Score:5, Insightful)
- Will ODF spreadsheets be functionally equivalent to CSV?
- Will ODF text be functionally equivalent to plain-text ASCII with line breaks?
- WIll ODF presentations be JPEG renderings?
- Will ODF import and export take hours?
- etc.
I've occasionally been accused of having an evil mind, but I'm sure that professionals given weeks or months can come up with better kneecapping plans than the above amateur hipshots.Re:Larger question (Score:5, Interesting)
I think what matters most is that MS has committed itself to providing ODF compliance, even if that is a bit limited way, by the end of the first quarter of 2009.
This means that businesses who have been delaying the normal computer upgrade cycle (sometimes for years) now have a clear pathway: they can immediately migrate to OpenOffice under existing WinXP licenses on new hardware, or they can jump directly to an enterprise Linux with OpenOffice. Either way, they can move forward knowing that before they have finished the rollout, the documents they are producing will be compliant with the Microsoft universe.
The timing of this is great for the USA economy. It is much less costly to do a major rollout in a slack period, and we can count on slack for the rest of 2008. It will be easier to hire the needed tech support people, and if the rollout involves moving to Linux, it can be done with a lot less expense in hardware than the cost forecasts of even last year. The time and cost for retraining staff can be more easily absorbed during the competitive lull. Then when the economy gets back on track in 2009, these companies will be very well positioned for fast and strong growth.
I applaud Microsoft for biting the bullet and coming out with this news now. Perhaps now USA IT departments can get out of these doldrum eddies and start making headway again.
What people want (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but most people actually couldn't give a crap about standards. Most people just want a functional suite of office applications that works more or less the way they've come to expect such programs. Most people aren't even aware that there is such a thing as a file format, or that there are different types of them.
Most people also want to be able to easily exchange documents with other people. That's part of the reason why Office is so well entrenched. Sure, you can download a copy of OO to open an ODF file, but if you're running a business, you don't want to make your clients do that, because it's a hassle. Nearly everyone has Office, and practically nobody has OO (this is in rough marketshare percentages).
Don't get me wrong. I would rather have a clear, open standard with a decent existing implementation that's not tied to the whims of a vendor. But I and people like me really are a very small part of the market.
Re:What people want (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They also tend to have rather limited requirements, and wouldn't want to spend a lot of money on it.
Someone who just types up a few letters or does their own limited accounts in a spreadsheet would be much better off with openoffice, if only due to the cost. There are also a number of cheap suites, such as msworks being marketed quite successfully to these peop
OOXML is not an ISO standard (Score:5, Informative)
UKUUG is currently waiting on the UK judicial system to decide whether to do a judicial review of the British Standards Institute's recent decision to ratify OOXML.
clonking "comments" together in blocks of 100 for vote "yes no", towards the end of the (only) 5 day process, smells a bit fishy. especially as the comments weren't actually reviewed as having been actioned / corrected (in the 6,000 page document).
the BSI came up with something ridiculous like 900 comments on the 6,000 page document.
it's all incredibly fishy - long story. far too much to fit into one silly slashdot comment, so i'll stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Results for eggs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Results for eggs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Results for eggs (Score:5, Funny)
- RG>
Q: Will this signal the end of Excel dominance? (Score:4, Interesting)
That, and StarOffice just doesn't feel polished compared to MSOffice.
I seriously think that the macros built around companies' documents & spreadsheets are what's keeping them locked in to MSOffice, not the file format, per se
And for all you OO.o fans out there, don't even bother getting started; StarOffice is essentially OO.o, but with better support for MSOffice formatted documents, plus it has better tools like its thesaurus. OO.o may be nice for you, but there's a reason why Sun can sell StarOffice, and it's not because Sun's evil, and it's not *just* about tech support.
Re:Q: Will this signal the end of Excel dominance? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, and MS Office 2008 for Mac will not.
Re:Q: Will this signal the end of Excel dominance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After this announcement: "MS Office 2003 is unable to read this file format (odt). Please upgrade to Office 2007."
- RG>
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A: There's no reason anymore not to drop MS Office (Score:3, Interesting)
A: No, because companies are already so deep with old .xls files and macros built for said files that they will still be unwilling to transition from Microsoft Office to StarOffice.
Actually StarOffice and OpenOffice have always had better support for legacy formats, including those legacy formats from MS. Now both have VBA support as mentioned in other posts here. And now that MS has dropped support from its old formats, it's not a question of if businesses are going to drop MS Office, but only a matter of when... unless they get the fishook called SharePoint in their gullet. If you have old MS documents, rely on those old MS documents and you can't keep old versions of MS Offic
Not embrace and extend, but embrace and squeeze (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not embrace and extend, but embrace and squeeze (Score:4, Informative)
Word processing vs. Page layout (Score:3, Interesting)
You're confusing word processing with page layout. If you want total control over presentation, use FrameMaker -- that's what it's for.
At the other end of the spectrum, you can use LaTex and various front ends and again have total control over appearance across platforms, but without the user having to worry about the details. Word pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the brave new world. OpenOffice.org is the one that's working "correctly" and preserving people's copyright.
MS BJ's (Score:5, Funny)
I think that Microsoft could announce tomorrow that they are giving out free blow jobs to anyone who uses Linux. As soon as the first blowjob was given out, someone would find something negative about it.
Re:MS BJ's (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MS BJ's (Score:4, Funny)
(Just because one is paranoid, doesn't mean M$ isn't out to get you)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know people here sometimes say that Ballmer can suck their dicks, but they don't mean it literally. If you noticed him unzipping your pants and puckering up, wouldn't you have a few terrified comments too?
Re:MS BJ's (Score:5, Funny)
eee (Score:3)
Extend (aka 'break')
Extinguish (where we'll end up)
Nuff said
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and all of our advancements were the result of 3rd party extensions of the standard.
AJAX was invented by MS, not by a standards body. The canvas tag was invented by Apple. Both are widely supported standards now that have a marked improvement over what the w3c is pushing.
Correction on "save to" capability (Score:5, Informative)
Andy
They walk on ice. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They walk on ice. (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly the failure you describe.
A bit misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is a bit misleading. Current Office 2007 documents fail to validate as transitional OOXML because of some very minor differences. For example, the final standard changed an attribute value from "yes/no" to "true/false".
All major ODF implementations, including OpenOffice, fail to validate against ISO ODF 1.0 for similar reasons.
Thus, to make some big deal of Microsoft not immediately slipstreaming in an update to Office to 100% conform to OOXML, while ignoring the fact that OpenOffice still doesn't fully conform to ODF so long after ODF 1.0 was ratified is a bit hypocritical.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To be in control of their own future (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine a situation where MS could not leverage the feature advantage, because the standard persistence format could not represent the advanced feature set. Ink comes to mind; it's actually part of OXML but there's not anything like it in ODF. Representatives for Microsofts competitors could fight any extension (invoking the "err on side of caution" argument) of the format until OO/StarOffice was prepared to implement the feature as well. But that would actually stiffle innovation and hurt the customers who could actually realize a productivity gain from new features.
By creating a situation where we have two formats and already a situation where one is larger and with more features specified, Microsoft has got a situation where they can let the "conservatives" drive (or not) ODF, and Microsoft can be the primary driver of OXML, although they can now only make suggestions and requests. In short they have a situation where they stand a better chance at exposing the hidden agendas of their competitors representatives should they ever try to hold back Microsoft innovation in Office for compettitive reasons.
I don't believe for a second that the motives of IBM, Oracle and Sun were always free of hidden agendas. Of course they saw their involvement (and influence through merits) in ODF as a way to gain some control over the future of MS Office. Office has always been one of MS' best cash cows.
You can argue that we don't need any more innovation in the office productivity area. But that would be an opinion and not something you should base a standard upon.
It's about sales (Score:5, Interesting)
Will be in Office 2007 SP2, link to press release (Score:5, Informative)
Also, ODF will be allowed to be configured as the default format for documents.
SP2 will also include support for PDF and XPS export.
So much confusion... (Score:3, Funny)
I have a feeling this will get turned on its head: "oh, we really meant OOXML, sorry!"
I almost thought Micro$oft went good (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why Microsoft supports the ODF format (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft knows that OpenOffice.Org, Star Office, IBM Lotus Symphony, and other office suites already support ODF, and Microsoft does not want Office 2007 to be the pink elephant that does not support ODF, and Office 2007 users couldn't open up ODF format documents from friends and coworkers, and would flock to Office 2007 alternatives to open them up. Microsoft knows that would cut into Office 2007 sales as most ODF office suites are free to download and use.
Microsoft also knows that many governments have already decided to support ODF format documents, and if Office 2007 doesn't get ODF support, sales will go to Microsoft's competitors.
There have been massive online campaigns for ODF and against OOXML, this is Microsoft's way of silencing critics of Office 2007 that it does not support a true open standard.
Microsoft knows that MS-Word and PDF documents have already started to be replaced with ODF documents. Also the old RTF format no longer meets the needs of Internet documents anymore and MS-Word format is just a modified RTF format. Just as Adobe lost control of who uses the PDF standard, Microsoft knows that they can get control of the ODF format from Sun/IBM etc as well.
I think I speak for a lot of us (Score:4, Insightful)
But almost every time stuff like this happens, Microsoft eventually ends up playing their old tricks.
It would be cool if they surprised us this time, but they have far too great a credibility dept for me to think anything particularly good will come from this move.
How long until ODF includes (Score:3, Interesting)
Moreover, it would also join both the OASIS working group as well as the ISO/IEC JTC1 working group that has control of the ISO/IEC version of ODF.
How long until they bribe the working group and we find that ODF includes specifications like "word wrap like office 95"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not MS will keep their mitts off it remains to be seen. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now. Suicidal, I know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Say what you will, this is a good thing. It'll expand the reach of ODF, which is an excellent format.
No, ODF is a terrible format. Its one redeeming feature is that it sucks less than OXML. I suspect that Microsoft have worked out that they can fully support ODF quite easily and implement their own extensions for things (multiple numbered list styles, highlighting, annotations, and so on) that are not supported by ODF and force everyone else to go back to reverse engineering Microsoft formats.
Re:An Empire in Rapid Decline, said Time Magazine. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm more scared of them supporting ODF than I am of OOXML. How do we know they aren't going to try to do what they successfully did to Netscape. They could easily add a bunch of their own stuff into ODF so that nothing but Office would be able to read the ODF files Office puts out.
If however they are really trying to comply with ODF then hats off to MS for being serious about embracing standards.
Re:An Empire in Rapid Decline, said Time Magazine. (Score:5, Interesting)
But then, look at IE. It took some serious competition, in the form of Firefox, but IE finally did shape up and start adding features (tabs) and reasonable standards compliance.
All we really need, then, is an ACID test for ODF, in which we can show that OpenOffice, KOffice, Google Docs, and even isolated projects like AbiWord and Gnumeric do better than Office, thus shaming Microsoft into doing it right. That assumes they don't get it right the first time, although that does seem unlikely.
Re:An Empire in Rapid Decline, said Time Magazine. (Score:5, Informative)
Hah! He said "chair"... (Score:4, Funny)
Then the first thing Ballmer will do is to throw him out.
When will you guys learn not to mention the word "chair" in a discussion involving Microsoft?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a crime to reply; just reply-on topic and without accusations that are irrelevant to the point under discussion. Seriously, it makes perfect sense to me that someone be karmically punished for obsessing over someone else's posting habits as opposed to discussing the topic at hand.
Aside from that, even if he /were/ gaming the moderation system, it seems that he's only succeeded in having multiple accounts with bad karma... not a terribly effective 'gaming', wouldn't you say?
Aw damn. This is the sec
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He has multiple accounts? So fucking what? His posts aren't that great? Again, so fucking what?
Is twitter some sort of child molester and I missed the memo, or is it really just that some number of ACs really have nothing better to do than search out all of his posts and whine about him because... um... just because?
Re:Sinking Ship. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Why do I have to learn a new interface?
2) Why is user X not able to open my files. Why can't we open our shared files?
3) Why is our file corrupted.
This issue has become so great that department managers have been asking me if we can go to OpenOffice.
Current plan is to minimize purchases of systems with Office 2007 and switch to OO next year, after the new version with file sharing comes out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot sucks more and more every day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2) What files can Office 2007 not open?
3) File corruption? Can you point me to some reference that backs that up? I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I haven't heard about it being any better or worse than 2003 in that regard, except that 2007 has better recovery options. In my experience, Word files sometimes get borked when edited over an extremely slow network connection or VPN link, but the few times that's happened to me I've been able to recover from it.
This is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sinking Ship. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never once not been able to open my files with O2K7/8 or have had any problem sharing files.
Not a single corrupted file in many hours of use. The recovery system works fine in the event of a power outage or reboot without saving. I don't know where you're getting your data, but given my experience I'd say one of us is in the minority here. Given some of the other responses to your post I'm thinking it's you.
Re:Sinking Ship. (Score:5, Funny)
I agree! I can't count the number of times I've been writing a letter to family and needed the wife to put in a few words. With the new Sharepoint integration its been a snap for us to collaborate on docs together (like the grocery list). All it took was an extra server, and new licensing seats. ~
Re:Sinking Ship. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm usually competent at detecting sarcasm from context. The trick is to actually make it exaggerated enough that it can't be anything but sarcasm. This becomes a problem when a zealot might make the same statement seriously -- it is plausible that someone would have a spare Windows Server license to use for something like this, or that they wou
Re:Sinking Ship. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sinking Ship. (Score:4, Funny)
There. Fixed that for you.