Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft to Introduce PDF competitor 'Metro'

RustNeverSleeps writes "Computerworld reports that Microsoft will be including a new document format called 'Metro' with Longhorn. Apparently, Metro is intended to be a competitor to Adobe's PDF and Postscript formats. The format will be open and available for royalty-free licensing, and will be based on XML. Can we expect Microsoft to do this right? If they do, I think it could be a good thing." Reader gsfprez is less optimistic: "... I noticed the main, and probably most important difference between old and busted PDF and new-hotness Metro (besides the Queer Eye styled name)... 'We will offer products based on this next generation RIP technology and make them available under license to printer manufacturers and software integrators worldwide.' Yes, I can see it now - entire industries undoing their time-tested, battle hardend PDF-based workflows with free and open files all for the chance to use patented, pay-for-use Microsoft proprietary workflows, software, and files. Good luck with that, guys."

13 of 798 comments (clear)

  1. Doing it right... by symbolic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The format will be open and available for royalty-free licensing, and will be based on XML. Can we expect Microsoft to do this right?

    No. Royalty-free licensing still allows them to place restrictions. And as for XML, so what? Word documents are in XML format, but the XML only encapsulates a bunch of stuff that's still proprietary and inaccesible. Lastly, the last thing anyone needs is another document format owned by a monopoly.

    1. Re:Doing it right... by TractorBarry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well said.

      The only reason to use a computer is to manipulate and store data. If your data is being held in someone elses proprietary, secret, format then you risk losing your own data.

      Or as I like to think of it it's like putting your swag in someone elses safe where you haven't got the key. Fine as long as they "play nicely" but what happens when they suddenly decide you can't have your stuff back without paying an enormous fee ? Or that you now have to pay them large maintenance fees for them to keep storing your stuff ? Or in the worst case where they sell the safe to "a big band gang" who now insist this means they own your stuff too ?

      So I think it's a very bad idea. Very bad indeed.

      Insisiting on open formats and open standards also means everyone has to compete on a level playing field. This can only encourage developers/companies to focus more on the quality of the software they produce in order to stand out from the competition.

      So once again all I can say to Microsoft is "thanks, but no thanks".

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  2. PDF is A-OK by sockonafish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's nothing wrong with PDFs. I can create and open PDFs easily and speedily in OS X with Preview.

    Acrobat Reader, however, is like an eighty year old woman behind the wheel of an otherwise useful and speedy automobile. Why does Preview take a a matter of milliseconds to do what takes Acrobat fifteen seconds or more?

    Oh yeah, there's no dobut that Metro is going to be Trusted Computing Friendly.

    1. Re:PDF is A-OK by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Why does Preview take a a matter of milliseconds to do what takes Acrobat fifteen seconds or more?

      Just think of all the extra things Acrobat has to do.

      • Load ads from Yahoo into toolbar.
      • Load and verify the "webbuy.dll" DRM system.
      • Load the PDF form management system.
      • Check with Adobe for updates.
      • Check with Adobe for more products to try to sell you. ("There's more to Acrobat than the Reader!")
      • Coming soon: Acrobat/Flash interaction. At last, animated PDFs!
  3. that's not "open" by cahiha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An XML-based PDF-alternative is a good idea. However, a format is not "open" if it is "available for licensing". "Available for licensing" implies that the creator of the format retains some control, and that is not acceptable, no matter who the company is that created the format.

    Microsoft seems to have trouble with the concept of "open"; perhaps that's not too surprising, since Sun, traditionally one of the strongest proponents of open systems and formats, has developed trouble in their understanding of "open" as well since they came out with Java.

  4. Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously Microsoft, with your thousands upon thousands of talented (paid) programmers and with the deadline of Longhorn constantly being pushed back, is it at all possible for you to do something that is not

    a) Reinventing the wheel
    b) Taking someone else's idea and repackaging it
    c) 100 steps behind what open source is already doing.
    d) Inconsequencal to your only major release, Longhorn.

    So what if Longhorn introduces a new document format? Within 5 minutes of running it I bet we'll all find something MS could of spent better their time on.

  5. Re:No problems there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an end user, I look forward to any replacement to PDFs.

    No, you look forward to a replacement for Adobe's PDF Reader. PDF the format is wonderful -- just look at it's support on Mac OS X.

    The reason government agencies (and many many others) use it is because it's the best, most open, best-supported format of it's kind. There is absolutely no requirement that you use Adobe's software to read or write PDF.

  6. Re:they haven't done anything else right by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, sucky products I could deal with. It's their business practices I can't stand.

    If they weren't so underhanded and evil we wouldn't have to deal with their sucky products, because market forces would have either killed them or forced them to not suck.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  7. Re:GET BACK TO WORK ON LONGHORN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, mostly it's designed to spreat FUD. The aim is to stop people from investing in Adobe. Why would you do that if Microsoft may come along in some years and do a Netscape on them. They will weaken them with insinuation etc. etc. As long as they are able to get away with transferring their monopoly in one product (the O/S) into illegal monopolies in others with no reaction from competition authorities, this will be an effective strategy against anything except for free software.

  8. Re:Too late? by Compenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > I think they are a bit late in the game, given that most people are used to PDF and have PDF reader installed already. It's like Firefox, sure it made IE dropped below 90%, that's still a tiny splash and I don't think it will have the chance to become the majority.

    Netscape had massive market share before IE was bundled with windows. Bundling with windows can do excellent things to your market share.

  9. Leveraging the desktop monopoly into PDF's turf by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Assuming anyone still has some computing magazines from 5 or 10 years ago, it is possible to compare the hype and sales brochures for NT and 2000 to what was actually delivered. That would give a baseline on what to expect from "Shorthorn". It may also give a good base for customers who've been burned by pricing, licensing or security issues to file with the Better Business Bureau. I mean everyone who bought into Software Assurance got a good return on investment, right?

    I expect that an alpha version of "Shorthorn" will get pushed out the door in December just to justify claims that it was ready in 2006. The only way for MS to gain marketshare over PDF would be to leverage their desktop monopoly to break into that new market currently occupied by PDF.

    Even if the licensing were just a rubberstamp issue (which it probably isn't) with MS giving the nod till all who request it (which it probably won't), dealing with the paperwork is an unreasonable hurdle and PDF still wins. Publishing is about reaching your audience and that's where a freely available, documented format like PDF comes in. Yes, it's owned by Adobe, but anyone can implement a writer or a reader. Metro fails on that due to licensing restrictions.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  10. TrueType vs. Postscript fonts by Spoing · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Remember...no, of course 1/2 of you didn't; you were 5!

    OK...for you kiddies out there; Way back in the 90s, Adobe charged an arm and a leg for Postscript ($1,000/printer) and Postscript fonts were expensive. Apple complained. Microsoft complained. Everyone buying a printer complained or wished for a cheap Postscript printer so !!#@$!$ would look right when they printed. Adobe held firm.

    Apple decided along with Microsoft to change part of the problem...Postscript fonts. Jointly, they developed TrueType. Adobe held firm...till it was obvious that Postscript was in danger. Rates fell on Poscript licences, though it was too late and TrueType fonts became dominate.

    Adobe retrenched and created the Postscript offshoot PDF...and documents became printable and portable again. Adobe became more involved in the detailed document creation process.

    Fast forward to now. Microsoft (by themselves) are attempting to complete the job and take Adobe out of the document creation picture. It's not going to be hard for Microsoft to do it this time. Expect a suite of Metro document editing and processing tools from Microsoft around the time Longhorn is released.

    The only gift in this? You now have a year and a half to two years to plan.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    1. Re:TrueType vs. Postscript fonts by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not going to be hard for Microsoft to do it this time.

      How do you figure? This time Microsoft isn't competing against an overpriced product and overpriced fonts, and there's no groundswell of anger against PDF.

      If anything, the document format that people are hating right now is Microsoft's own Word format.