If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Microsoft Office 2007 fails to conform to the OXML standard that Microsoft crammed down everyone's throats. Penis   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 68
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

2860 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Apr 2008 at 2:50 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-04-22 02:17:19 PM
*yawn*

What was this supposed to fix?
 
2008-04-22 02:27:46 PM
ThatGuyGreg: *yawn*

What was this supposed to fix?


The fact that people don't upgrade their Office until they get documents that won't open in their current version.
 
2008-04-22 02:40:50 PM
I must've missed the day on Fark that adding one or two words on the end of a headline, like "Penis" or "The Aristocrats" became a cliche, I just don't get it.
 
2008-04-22 02:43:48 PM
Cinletharwi: I must've missed the day on Fark that adding one or two words on the end of a headline, like "Penis" or "The Aristocrats" became a cliche, I just don't get it.

hehehehe It cracks me up. penis.
 
2008-04-22 02:48:00 PM
Saborlas: The fact that people don't upgrade their Office until they get documents that won't open in their current version.

And why on God's green farking erf would anyone but MS give a flying fark about that?

I really hope that my grandkids look back on this time and wonder WTF was wrong with people that they'd root for corporations.
 
2008-04-22 02:53:58 PM
to use the words of that parrot from disney's aladin, why does this not surprise me
 
2008-04-22 02:58:33 PM
Embrace, extend, extinguish. Penis.
 
2008-04-22 03:06:59 PM
Well, to be fair to Microsoft... the ISO committee changed the spec as it was going through committee without Microsoft's input... so the resulting format didn't match what MS already had been using.. This isn't really Microsoft's fault.
 
2008-04-22 03:11:13 PM
I'm interested in this but too lazy to spend the time looking up additional info. Will some nice samaritan give me a low down on this?
 
2008-04-22 03:15:32 PM
Softchoice has not told me to worry about this yet. I look forward to Softchoice telling me which enterprise solution from key strategic market partners will evolve my dynamic approach to leveraging key market strengths! I am savy.
 
2008-04-22 03:15:38 PM
I still prefer WordPerfect, so I'm getting a kick out of this.
 
2008-04-22 03:16:13 PM
Microsofts interest in this is to discredit the very concept of real standards. By buying off enough support for an obviously ridiculous cause they sow FUD and get more time for the de facto standards they control to collect monopoly rents.
They don't want a written standard , not even ooxml, they want the standard to be 'whatever office does'.
 
2008-04-22 03:16:42 PM
I forgot to mention: penis.
 
2008-04-22 03:16:48 PM
Saborlas:
The fact that people don't upgrade their Office until they get documents that won't open in their current version.


There is a compatibility patch with will fix that.

I honestly don't see any need to upgrade to Office 2007 (except I hear their are functionality upgrades in Excel). In fact office 2000 would still work fine for 90% of the users out there.
 
2008-04-22 03:18:26 PM
For all the stuff Microsoft does that's against the computing community, I actually like Office. If only they didn't cripple Office 2008 for the Mac...
 
2008-04-22 03:19:25 PM
Silver1973: I still prefer WordPerfect, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

ditto...

Corel has everything covered now.

The odd part is that just about all graphic and video softwares I've used throughout the years have all ended up being purchased by Corel.

So aside the MS stuff that I am stuck using because others do, almost everything I now use is from Corel.
 
2008-04-22 03:40:40 PM
I upgraded to Office 2007 and wish I had never seen it. Went back to 2003 ASAP.
 
2008-04-22 03:41:00 PM
xtex: Well, to be fair to Microsoft... the ISO committee changed the spec as it was going through committee without Microsoft's input... so the resulting format didn't match what MS already had been using.. This isn't really Microsoft's fault.

Shut your mouth This is Fark and Microsoft is Evil
 
2008-04-22 03:48:06 PM
Hardy-r-r: I upgraded to Office 2007 and wish I had never seen it. Went back to 2003 ASAP.

We use it at my work and it's not bad. I really do like the new toolbars at the top but I will admit it took a while to get used to where the menu items were. I certainly would not have bought it myself though, because other than new toolbars the features I use are identical to 2003 (which I also saw very little point in getting over Office XP except for new toolbars).

BTW I use Mac Office 2004 at home. No reason for me to go to 2008, especially with the downgrade of losing VB macro capabilities.
 
2008-04-22 03:49:08 PM
Did you know you can rename a .docx to .zip and open it that way? It's just a zip file full of xml files.
 
2008-04-22 03:53:18 PM
Did anybody else notice that, in Word 2007, "Save as Web Page" results in a document that is only marginally readable? I use this for calendars intended for website uploading, and I have to save as an older Word version, then save as web page from a previous Word version to make it readable.

I can't find anything about that in the Microsoft Knowledge Base.
 
2008-04-22 03:54:31 PM
Hardy-r-r: I upgraded to Office 2007 and wish I had never seen it. Went back to 2003 ASAP.

I dunno. It certainly is different from the earlier versions. If you're used to 2003 and earlier, it takes getting used to. However, it seems to be laid out a bit more logically, with toolbars grouped according to function instead of everything at once. For the most part, it works just fine.
 
2008-04-22 03:57:11 PM
akula: Did anybody else notice that, in Word 2007, "Save as Web Page" results in a document that is only marginally readable? I use this for calendars intended for website uploading, and I have to save as an older Word version, then save as web page from a previous Word version to make it readable.

I can't find anything about that in the Microsoft Knowledge Base.


I haven't tried it in 2007. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've tried any of the 'Save as Web Page' features in years. It gave me nightmares, and FrontPage gave me a bad rash.
 
2008-04-22 04:10:14 PM
theurge14: We use it at my work and it's not bad.

It's not good either. I don't like the way a bunch of features are hidden in the right click menu. I also don't like the amount of real estate devoted to that damn ribbon. I had high hopes for the ribbon, and was underwhelmed by the actual product.

Usability nightmare.
 
2008-04-22 04:11:00 PM
akula: I dunno. It certainly is different from the earlier versions. If you're used to 2003 and earlier, it takes getting used to. However, it seems to be laid out a bit more logically, with toolbars grouped according to function instead of everything at once. For the most part, it works just fine.

Same here. I upgraded my whole office to 2007 a few months ago and and other than a day or two of getting used to the new 'ribbon' menu format, everyone seems to like it. The most common answer I had to everyone's questions was "right click. there it is."

The new file format is nice; all of our documents are now 1/2 to 1/3rd the size they were before. That and outlook 07 is vastly improved in its ability to schedule larger group meetings (automatically taking into account everyone's schedule conflicts) and the spam filter is greatly improved. After about a week, our receptionist said she'd never go back to earlier versions of office.
 
2008-04-22 04:16:32 PM
t3knomanser: theurge14: We use it at my work and it's not bad.

It's not good either. I don't like the way a bunch of features are hidden in the right click menu. I also don't like the amount of real estate devoted to that damn ribbon. I had high hopes for the ribbon, and was underwhelmed by the actual product.

Usability nightmare.


Not going to argue with that. But I like the ribbon. Anything to make icons readable and actually useful is good in my book. The horrible, tiny, badly rendered icons I had to deal with when I used XP were ridiculous. Some of them might as well just have forgone the icon and just put words in their place.
 
2008-04-22 04:16:51 PM
MrSteve007: The most common answer I had to everyone's questions was "right click. there it is."

And that's annoying as hell. Bad UI designers! No donut!

MrSteve007: The new file format is nice; all of our documents are now 1/2 to 1/3rd the size they were before.

Yeah, it's called "zip". The actual file format is way more bloated- but then they compress it.

Don't get me wrong- Office is still the king of Office apps. But it's never had good UI design, and Office07 isn't breaking that streak. It's not awful- it never is- but there are so many little things that piss me the hell off.

//Word is good, Excel is one of a kind, Powerpoint looks sad compared to Keynote.
 
2008-04-22 04:21:59 PM
Yes, I concur that what we need from MS Office is a lot more features. Their current lack of features has significantly impacted both my creativity and my productivity. And, on a more global scope, I think it is fair to say that the rest of the world hates us for our features. Therefore, in order to win the war against software-ism, we need more features. It almost goes without saying, really..
 
2008-04-22 04:24:18 PM
For what it's worth, larger Access databases are MUCH faster to query when they're in 2007 format. Like, order of magnitude faster. It almost makes having to find all the features again worthwhile.
 
2008-04-22 04:25:23 PM
t3knomanser: MrSteve007: The most common answer I had to everyone's questions was "right click. there it is."

And that's annoying as hell. Bad UI designers! No donut!

MrSteve007: The new file format is nice; all of our documents are now 1/2 to 1/3rd the size they were before.

Yeah, it's called "zip". The actual file format is way more bloated- but then they compress it.

Don't get me wrong- Office is still the king of Office apps. But it's never had good UI design, and Office07 isn't breaking that streak. It's not awful- it never is- but there are so many little things that piss me the hell off.

//Word is good, Excel is one of a kind, Powerpoint looks sad compared to Keynote.


And Outlook is a UI nightmare but it has a solid feature set.

If OpenOffice is the best open source can come up with then that is a big reason why there will never be 'The Year of Linux on the Desktop'.
 
2008-04-22 04:25:44 PM
Doesn't Microsoft literally mean "small and squishy"?
 
2008-04-22 04:26:11 PM
gnobesav: For what it's worth, larger Access databases are MUCH faster to query when they're in 2007 format. Like, order of magnitude faster. It almost makes having to find all the features again worthwhile.

I've noticed this at work too. Access 2007 is actually decent.

However, Sharepoint can kiss my ass. :D
 
2008-04-22 04:29:09 PM
gnobesav: For what it's worth, larger Access databases are MUCH faster to query when they're in 2007 format. Like, order of magnitude faster. It almost makes having to find all the features again worthwhile.

That's because, if I remember correctly, Access is now based on Sql Server Express or whatever the desktop version is called these days.

theurge14: If OpenOffice is the best open source can come up with then that is a big reason why there will never be 'The Year of Linux on the Desktop'.

UI design is hard. Even Apple, the poster boy for clean and functional UIs screws things up royally from time to time. It's no surprise that Open Source can't get it together on the UI front.
 
2008-04-22 04:31:02 PM
theurge14: If OpenOffice is the best open source can come up with then that is a big reason why there will never be 'The Year of Linux on the Desktop'.

No platform has a chance in enterprise environments unless it can communicate with Exchange servers. Entourage 2008 (the Mac Outlook equivalent) only supports 2/3rds or so of Exchange's feature set, and I highly doubt that's an accident.
 
2008-04-22 04:34:03 PM
gnobesav: No platform has a chance in enterprise environments unless it can communicate with Exchange servers.

Well, there is Lotus. It does exist and is used in enterprise settings.
 
2008-04-22 04:36:42 PM
vagina
 
2008-04-22 04:37:16 PM
poop
 
2008-04-22 04:39:39 PM
I have a penis so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2008-04-22 04:40:19 PM
pee pee
 
2008-04-22 04:40:25 PM
gnobesav: theurge14: If OpenOffice is the best open source can come up with then that is a big reason why there will never be 'The Year of Linux on the Desktop'.

No platform has a chance in enterprise environments unless it can communicate with Exchange servers. Entourage 2008 (the Mac Outlook equivalent) only supports 2/3rds or so of Exchange's feature set, and I highly doubt that's an accident.


Comment seconded. While some are pushing heavily on the UI front, a program could could have the world's greatest, slickest, most usable UI, and if it doesn't do jack to integrate with the rest of an enterprise, no company is going to use it.

Don't get me wrong, exchange server is by no means a perfect beast, but for 90% of businesses, it's the best thing out there and I've found to be extremely stable. My 03 exchange server is 5 years old, has 45 user accounts (2gigs each) and deflects 50-70 thousand incoming spam emails during the workday. Between exchange and outlook 07, the typical user sees only a couple spams a week, and in the past 3 years, we've had zero down time. Worth every cent we paid for it.

Looking forward to going to a exchange 07 and server 08 environment in a couple months though.
 
2008-04-22 04:43:13 PM
img214.imageshack.us

/just getting this out of the way
 
2008-04-22 04:50:19 PM
t3knomanser: gnobesav: No platform has a chance in enterprise environments unless it can communicate with Exchange servers.

Well, there is Lotus. It does exist and is used in enterprise settings.


Yeah, and for the most part is a joke. Here's my experience with Lotus notes.

My wife works for Macy's corporate, and for the most part they're an Apple/Lotus notes environment. When her computer isn't crashing (which happens every 3 hours during the day) she's fighting with her email client on lotus.

My most recent issue involved creating a new calendar event (on office 07) for a movie night with our friends. I sent her an invite, which she was able to accept, but invite did not include any of the images, and reformatted the return receipt completely funky, near unreadable format. The next day, I made a change to the event time (since one friend couldn't make it) and moved the reminder to a day further and sent the auto update. Everyone using Office had the event autoupdate for them without any issue, but for my wife, it removed the event entirely. Luckily she's the only one using that abomination of a program, since it decided to 'uninvite' her without prompt. But yes, that's just one experience with how well Lotus works with an exchange server.

Pure crap.
 
2008-04-22 04:57:45 PM
t3knomanser: That's because, if I remember correctly, Access is now based on Sql Server Express or whatever the desktop version is called these days.

That's awesome! That's the first I've heard of that.

t3knomanser: UI design is hard. Even Apple, the poster boy for clean and functional UIs screws things up royally from time to time. It's no surprise that Open Source can't get it together on the UI front.

The whole Gnome vs. KDE kinda ticks me off. KDE is definitely has superior UI. I'm anxious to try KDE 4(.1) in July.

That said, what do you have against OpenOffice's UI? I mean, stuff is in different place sometimes, and they've been missing a few real features, but I've never had a problem with its UI.

There's also KOffice.
 
2008-04-22 04:58:36 PM
MrSteve007: But yes, that's just one experience with how well Lotus works with an exchange server.

Actually, I was addressing that Lotus has a chance in enterprise environments and doesn't communicate with Exchange.
 
2008-04-22 05:00:33 PM
jonny_q: That said, what do you have against OpenOffice's UI? I mean, stuff is in different place sometimes, and they've been missing a few real features, but I've never had a problem with its UI.

It tries to imitate Microsoft Office, which is already bad. I wouldn't say it's worse than MS Office, but that's faint praise.
 
2008-04-22 05:13:17 PM
Microsoft FAILS at EVERYTHING! they can't even make their own software compatibly with their own operating systems...EPIC FAILS forever.
 
2008-04-22 05:13:29 PM
Meh.

I got an old machine I run ms word 5.5 for DOS on. As far as im concerned it is the apex of their word processing line. Best of all you can download it for free:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/word97win/Wd55_be/97/WIN98/EN-US/Wd55_ben .exe
 
2008-04-22 05:22:06 PM
Wait, wait, wait.

I thought everybody knew that the version of OOXML that they were submitting for approval was not the same version that shipped with Office '07 and would be applied with updates.

That's one MASSIVE reason I've made sure my office doesn't use Office '07, 'cause there's no guarantee that the .docx files you create today will be readable tomorrow. Hopefully there's some doctype declaration in the header of one of the XML files that'll tell Office '07 how to read it.

And oh what fun it will be when we start receiving the new .docx files and have to download some other reader for Word 2003 'cause the current one only supports the old .docx files and I have to explain to my end users "well, you see.. Microsoft screwed the pooch."
 
2008-04-22 05:43:21 PM
EvilEgg: Did you know you can rename a .docx to .zip and open it that way? It's just a zip file full of xml files.

Everyone that knows what the OOXML "standard" is knows that.

ISO's credibility has been destroyed. People are now looking at the other standards organizations. I think it's IETF that requires that there be two competing implementations of the standard before they approve it.
 
2008-04-22 05:50:15 PM
t3knomanser: That's because, if I remember correctly, Access is now based on Sql Server Express or whatever the desktop version is called these days.

This explains quite a bit. Access 2003 used to chug on a database I made of 12 tables and about 10,000 records for around 10 minutes just to spit out some formatted text. I converted to 2007 format and the same thing on the same system was nearly instantaneous. I thought it was broken at first, it was so fast. TMYK, I suppose.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report