Office 2003 Service Pack Disables Older File Formats

time961 writes "In Service Pack 3 for Office 2003, Microsoft disabled support for many older file formats. If you have old Word, Excel, 1-2-3, Quattro, or Corel Draw documents, watch out! They did this because the old formats are 'less secure', which actually makes some sense, but only if you got the files from some untrustworthy source. Naturally, they did this by default, and then documented a mind-bogglingly complex workaround (KB 938810) rather than providing a user interface for adjusting it, or even a set of awkward 'Do you really want to do this?' dialog boxes to click through. And of course because these are, after all, old file formats ... many users will encounter the problem only months or years after the software change, while groping around in dusty and now-inaccessible archives."

Comments

maybe grepping

[User 956]

many users will encounter the problem only months or years after the software change, while groping around in dusty and now-inaccessible archives.

Is that how one interfaces with rarely-used document archives? via groping?

Re:maybe grepping

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh the joy and expense of unlocking your intellectual property from someone else's intellectual property when the owner of the file format decides to abandon it.

Re:maybe grepping

[fahrbot-bot]

Is that how one interfaces with rarely-used document archives? via groping?

Bender: If by "interface" you mean "have sex with" and if by "rarely-used document archive" you mean "your girlfriend", then yes, "groping" is the correct term. As follows:

Hey baby, can I interface with your rarely-used document interface?
Later, want to kill all humans?

Re:maybe grepping

[dbIII]

Is that how one interfaces with rarely-used document archives? via groping?

That's assuming they date back to the Clinton admistration. In California this approach will be required for current documents.

Re:maybe grepping

[mrjb]

> Is that how one interfaces with rarely-used document archives? via groping?
Yes, didn't you know? You should have RTFM:

GROPE

NAME

              grope, egrope, fgrope, rgrep - print lines matching a pattern
              in rarely used document archives

SYNOPSIS

              grope (options) PATTERN (FILE...)

DESCRIPTION

              grope searches the named archives FILEs (or standard input if none are
              named, or the file name - is given) for lines containing a match to the
              given PATTERN. By default, grope prints the matching lines.

              In addition, three variant programs egrope, fgrep and rgrep are avail-
              able. egrep is the same as grope -E. fgrope is the same as
              grope -F. rgrope is the same as grope -r.

BUGS

              Backreferences are very slow, and may require exponential time.

Re:maybe grepping

[Carrottor]

Afaik, the mdi pdf wannabe format was introduced with 2003, but support for this has been removed along with the rest. I used it to back up all of my internet banking proof of payments. Why would anyone use that? Because there isnt a stupid timer like the pdf writer trial version I've got.

Re:maybe grepping

[xSauronx]

they misspelled grep-ing :-/

Re:maybe grepping

[PopeRatzo]

too obtuse, but not bad overall, dbill.

Re:maybe grepping

[Hal_Porter]

grope is only bundled with inGenuOuS, not with Unix.

Re:maybe grepping

[artgeeq]

Kind of adds new meaning to the phrase "Information Life Cycle Management."

Re:maybe grepping

[wgoodman]

adds whole new meaning to interfacing with her floppy drive (if you have a floppy drive, no wonder you have trouble accessing it)

Re:maybe grepping

[gallwapa]

Microsoft document imaging? I still show the image writer printer being there...?

Also if you just want to print things to PDF (not edit them) check out

Cute PDF at http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp

It adds a PDF-printer that you print to, then type in a file name, and viola!

Free, to boot.

Re:maybe grepping

[dysfirkin]

there are other ways to create pdf files if buying a full version of acrobat writer is out of you price range. OpenOffice allows you to create a pdf from its writer word processing suite and its calc spreadsheet program. A freeware program for windows called primopdf exists www.primopdf.com that allows you to create a pdf from any application.

Re:maybe grepping

[earlymon]

Your man page is incomplete. Grope is the GNU rope, which as your man page points out, gives you just enough of the results to let you hang yourself. I don't recall for sure, but I think it was developed to counter the rope ownership claims made by SCO.

Hope this helps!

Re:maybe grepping

[XHIIHIIHX]

Commands of the grope family search the input files (standard input default) for lines matching a pattern. Some of the lines matching this pattern will be sent to standard output. Others will not. Grope patterns are limited expressions in the style of mumps(1); it uses a compact nondeterministic n-depth multidimensional negative feedback oracle/bag-automata algorithm with mudflaps, foam dice, and dimples. Egrope works only in Europe. Fgrope uses FM to locate strings. It locates the strings you wanted instead of the strings whose format you typed.

http://linux.about.com/od/funnymanpages/a/funman_grope.htm

Re:maybe grepping

[dave87656]

One more reason why I use Open Office. I still find it humorous that people still stick to MS products after having to pay horrendous amounts of money and then to get treated like this with your own data. I have copies of old documents for archival purposes. I'd be angry if I knew I could not longer access those documents.

Come on MS users, is this what you really want?

Default value goes back pretty far

[compumike]

If you read the knowledge base article, you'll see that the default allowed old-version goes back to before even Word 95. PowerPoint 95, but not 97, is blocked. It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

However, I really have to question whether the enhanced security is worth it, since those old versions didn't allow too much of embedded scripting anyway. Are we just worried about buffer overflows, because those are still a symptom of their parser, not the format itself.

The software nanny continues to keep us from hurting ourselves... gee, thanks. (Hmm, anyone smell a similar trend in government lately?)

--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[LuckyLuke58]

Doubt it's really about security at all; I'm guessing it's probably more about 'nudging' the few people still using old versions of the software to upgrade: Those who currently exchange documents with users on newer versions will find suddenly they won't be able to send documents to anyone anymore without getting complaints that people can't open them. Deliberately making it too cumbersome and complex for most people to ever work around this, i.e. leaving it technically (but not really practically for almost everyone) an option, for now at least gives MS an excuse, while still taking a big step towards getting rid of support for those old formats entirely, which is not all that unreasonable I suppose for formats greater than 10 years old.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

PowerPoint 95, but not 97, is blocked. It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

When I worked in government, I found that people argued (with a lot of money at stake) over the wording of property ownership documents over a hundred years old. Whenever I hear people say something like this, I hope they're not in charge of anything lasting.

Of course, I wish our nation's military was not run on Powerpoint, but the reality is that much of our military activity (by far the largest department in government) is only documented in Powerpoint.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[deniable]

That already happened with Word '97. Big companies changed and everyone else had to follow. Microsoft caught a lot of heat and stopped making major format changes on every version. This patch blocks stuff from before '97, so I don't think there are too many people swapping documents around that will be affected. It will screw people who are digging out old copies of documents though.

Given that they are trying to push new formats with 2007, I can see the upgrade treadmill being driven from there. docx, anyone?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[RickRussellTX]

It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

I can only speculate that you've not worked in any institutions that have persisted for more than 10 years?

I used to run a university help desk; by the time I left in late 2006 we were still getting requests to convert 5.25" floppies and DOS Wordperfect 4 documents.

The situation is complicated by many other issues:

• There is no easy way to identify the files that need conversion. Microsoft gives you no tool or flag to quickly identify old files, which share the same filename conventions as current files. Except of course to open them in Office 2K3SP3 and watch them fail :-(
• Although bulk conversion tools exist, they cost money and they won't reach files that are secured in such a way that IT support staff can't get at them (e.g., on a CD-ROM in a locked filing cabinet).
• Because a ridiculously complicated registry hack is required to enable the converters for the old documents, there's no easy way to apply it, for example as an Active Directory group policy. We're left with error-prone methods like push tools & login scripts.

Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with the "file formats". A file format is not insecure. The issue is that Microsoft is shipping insecure code in Office 2007 and 2003 which may break when these files are opened and allow malicious executable code to run in the user's security context. Rather than fix this insecure code in a shipping product, their policy is to turn off the code and tell the user, "if you want to take the risk, turn it back on, but we won't make it easy."

I work at an organization that has been grappling with this problem since SP3 came out in September 2007. We routinely work on projects that span 15 years, so it's not at all unusual to open project documentation that is 10+ years old. Companies were loyal to MS Office precisely because it promised reasonably complete forward compatibility with archived documents. Microsoft needs to provide a more robust solution to this problem, preferably by fixing the broken code (gasp!) or (less preferably) giving system administrators the tools necessary to enable and disable the functionality in a more global way.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[dokebi]

It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

Really? How about the US government? NASA anyone?

Why should anyone stop supporting old document formats? Are the files created a long ago no longer important? How about 100 year old books? Should we burn them all?

We should stop this file format insanity now, and adopt some open format. Like ODF. Good riddance.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[elronxenu]

I expect many documents still exist in those old formats.

If 'security' is really the reason for dropping support that's pretty shameful; instead they should be supporting a safe subset of the document format so old documents can be imported safely.

This is just one more step in the process as predicted by many folks - old documents can't be read because they require obsolete software to work, which runs on obsolete Windows versions, which runs only on obsolete computers. The roots of the problem are that the document formats are proprietary and secret - and Microsoft requires obsolescence to keep people buying Windows.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Helldesk Hound]

> Deliberately making it too cumbersome and complex for most people to ever
> work around this, i.e. leaving it technically (but not really practically
> for almost everyone) an option, for now at least gives MS an excuse, while
> still taking a big step towards getting rid of support for those old formats
> entirely, which is not all that unreasonable I suppose for formats greater
> than 10 years old.

Let's not forget - what is being supported is *software*, ie M$ Office, not a file format.

The current iteration of Micro$oft Office should be capable of opening any and all files created by any prior release of M$ Office, and should be capable of doing so in a safe and secure manner.

If the current iteration of Micro$oft Office is incapable of safely and securely parsing any file created by any prior iteration of M$ Office then surely something is very wrong with Microsoft, and with M$ Office!!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

No one sane is using office 95. If I recall, there are some nasty hacks in windows written to accomidate brain dead office quirks. They were discovered when some one releases part of the windows source code a while back. I think it was doing something on the order of freeing a null pointer on start up or some such silly nonsense. I'd be willing to bet that the current parsing engine that does crazy stuff like "provideblockspacingaroundpictureslikeword95" still has to do some unsafe things. Rather rewriting the parsing of old documents, I'm sure it would have been easier to no disclose the vulnerabilities and drop support.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Tablizer]

However, I really have to question whether the enhanced security is worth it, since those old versions didn't allow too much of embedded scripting anyway.

If you have to read an old document then you have to read it. At least give the user a choice with a skull-and-bones warning message first. Let the user decide if they want to take the risk. It's just Microsoft trying to force people to pay for upgrades every few years instead of using old versions. Security is just a ruse.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[grcumb]

If you read the knowledge base article, you'll see that the default allowed old-version goes back to before even Word 95. PowerPoint 95, but not 97, is blocked. It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

I don't know about you, but all of my documents from University are in WordPerfect 5.x format, and many of the things I wrote in my earlier years were saved as Ami Pro. In general terms, it should neither be desirable nor necessary to update all of one's archival materials at the whim of the software maker.

While I can understand the danger of storing things in binary, word processing document formats are - or should be - especially easy to support for decades if not longer.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Tablizer]

big step towards getting rid of support for those old formats entirely

Support should be nearly non-existence because the translation code should already be written. I don't see any reason it would have to be changed. Can anybody think of a reason? I can understand ending the ability to "save as" an old format because one has to figure out if and how to translate new features to old formats, but this is not an issue to open, read, and convert an old format.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Deathlizard]

Back in September when we adopted Office 2007 where I work, I was concerned that this would be a big problem, since office 2007 does the same thing and 2003 SP3 just adds that functionality to 2003.

After 3 months, I can say that we ran into this problem 1 time. That's pretty good considering that many of the college professors have documents dating back over 10-15 years. In fact this particular professor wanted to open this DOS Word 3 document to re-import it into a newer document he already had that he accidentally deleted some the original text from.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[that this is not und]

Me, I'm just hoping nothing important is stored in PowerPoint documents.

But I do know a guy (now retired) who wrote reports with photographs in them by dragging in big unresized jpegs and tiffs to PowerPoint slides, then dragging the Powerpoint slides into Word documents. Thankfully after he retired I have mostly turned all those monsters (why should a 27 page report be 45MB???) into PDF files so the point in my case is moot.

I truly do hope that ownership documents that need to survive over 100 years are not stored in any format that Microsoft touches.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[syousef]

It is unreasonable, and stupid to boot.

Unreasonable:
Most students, business and personal users don't wish to be unable to open their 10 year old document because it's no longer supported. Students want to be able to access old study notes, businesses want to get at statistics, company history and old documentation of systems or business practices, and the end user wants to be able to open that wedding speech they wrote 10 years ago, or that collection of jokes in an MS word doc.

Stupid:
Why do people buy Office instead of using something free? For the 3000 features? No, at least most don't. They buy Office for universal compatibility s that they can exchange documents with everyone. The moment users start complaining that they can't open the MS Office document with Office, but it's okay you can use a free alternative, people will start installing the free alternative. They're not forcing anyone to move up to a later maintained version, they're forcing people away to software that actually does the job they want it to.

Only fools and company sock puppets (sales and marketing) actually believe obsolescence is reasonable, particularly when it comes to data.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[arivanov]

didn't allow too much of embedded scripting anyway.

It is not about scripting. It is about buffer overruns in the parser. Want to audit 15 years old code and bring it to the current state of the art standard for stack and especially heap overflow? I don't.

One time when I cannot really blame them

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

I can just picture you chuckling with glee about your brilliant deduction that something might be wrong with Microsoft (that's an s by the way, you seem to have accidentally used a dollar character)

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[harlows_monkeys]

Most students, business and personal users don't wish to be unable to open their 10 year old document because it's no longer supported. Students want to be able to access old study notes

If a student has been held back that long, the old notes are probably not going to help!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

which is not all that unreasonable I suppose for formats greater than 10 years old.

There are those that are not caught in the upgrade treadmill and would prefer their office suites to be Clippy-free, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[dbIII]

Word 95. PowerPoint 95, but not 97, is blocked. It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

I occasionally load in data tapes from as far back as 1982. Reports related to the data will be in whatever file format is popular at the time, which will be MS Word and MS Excel from the early 1990s on. Since computing power is so cheap now a lot of stuff in a lot of feilds gets reprocessed, old data is a lot more useful than repeating 10 years worth of experiments again or sending 50 guys out to survey an area for two months or even trying to examine something that doesn't exist anymore. Old file formats like TIFF, SEGD, tar and so on are deliberately backwards compatible so that archiving is more than just an expensive hobby. Since Microsoft have moved out of the hobby software space and into the office they should realise that they have to take a professional approach throughout the company to avoid mistakes like this.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[ta bu shi da yu]

Pah. Just use OpenOffice.org already.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[ta bu shi da yu]

Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with the "file formats". A file format is not insecure. The issue is that Microsoft is shipping insecure code in Office 2007 and 2003 which may break when these files are opened and allow malicious executable code to run in the user's security context. Rather than fix this insecure code in a shipping product, their policy is to turn off the code and tell the user, "if you want to take the risk, turn it back on, but we won't make it easy."

Thank you!!! Sanest comment I've seen in a long time.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[ta bu shi da yu]

Oh come on off it. That's no excuse, and they should have ways of auditing their code to detect this sort of thing. They are the world's largest software company after all.

The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice.org to open this sort of document. Best way of getting OOo on the desktop of ordinary users I've ever seen. Thank You Microsoft!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[uglyduckling]

S A N D B O X

It's a well known technique for dealing with buggy old software.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[ThePromenader]

Hmmm. Even the latest versions of Flash can read anything created even by the first versions of that app (circa '95), but upon opening it gives you a warning "document created by prior version will be updated for use with this version". Why couldn't MS do something like that?

This is bad for me because I still have many - very voluminous - research texts I had written with Word 6.0.1... and they don't even provide beforehand information on what versions (made by what applications) are or aren't supported? Forget "glee" at yet another MS failing - this will be just another pain in the ass for more than a few.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[mysticgoat]

It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

Tee-hee! That got laughs from all kinds of government employees, university administrative assistants, paralegals, and so on.

And this undoubtedly will put a smile on the faces of all the good old boys at Exxon, who have been fighting the good fight to keep from actually having to pay for the damage that their Valdez supertanker did about 20 years ago. If all the prosecutor briefs from before 1995 were suddenly much more difficult to access, then maybe Exxon will succeed in avoiding payment of the $2.5 billion they owe.

Proprietary file formats are definitely good for some businesses.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[digitrev]

Playing devil's advocate here, but there are a lot of career students. Some might even need to take a look at their first year notes on eigenvectors because they need to deal with it in the last year of their Ph.D, and they remember really liking the prof that year.

Just because you don't see a reason for it, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Heir Of The Mess]

Reminds me of this story:

With nearly half a century of experience using computers to run their business, Chris M's company knew that law all too well. Ever since that fateful Wednesday -- still known throughout the company as The Crash of '68 -- they swore, Never Again. And forty years later, they've kept their promise.

Over the years, Chris's employer has come as close to a Perfect Technology Infrastructure as anyone. They hire the best network administrators money can buy and give them whatever resources they need to ensure that the infrastructure remains solid. And that they do.

The company's backup and retention plan is nothing short of immaculate. Every system they've ever purchased -- from that old payroll program on the System/360 to that bizarre parts database for OS/2 -- can be brought back to life, if not physically than through virtualization. A walk through their "software archive" was a treat for many; new technicians are often astonished to learn, not only of the existence of 8-inch floppy disks, but that the company still has the 8-inch install disks for CP/M. And a drive to run them on.

Naturally, thanks to the aforementioned Murphy's Law, this elaborate backup and retention is rarely, if ever, called into use. The only excitement the network technicians ever get is that occasional, frantic, "Oh Crap! I accidentally deleted that critical PowerPoint presentation" call. And even that is easily solved by walking the user through their self-service file restoration system.

But a little while back, the network technicians received a restoration request that actually sounded interesting. A production manager needed a report of the "old old" part numbers for a long out-of-production assembly. "Old old" referred an ancient mainframe system that had been replaced by the "old" system over ten years go and finally shut down in 2001. Restoring the "old old" system meant setting up a new emulation environment, mounting the old disk image, and praying that it boots up without a hitch.

This was the first time ever that an actual user had requested such a restoration, so the network technicians were naturally a bit nervous. But thanks to their meticulous planning and procedures, everything went fine. The system booted up without a hitch and the production manager was summoned to log in to the terminal they had set up for him. He sat down at the chair, keyed in his username, and then paused for a moment.

"Now, what was my password five years ago?"

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a ridiculously complicated registry hack is required to enable the converters for the old documents, there's no easy way to apply it, for example as an Active Directory group policy. We're left with error-prone methods like push tools & login scripts.

While the rest of your comment was spot on, this is a load of rubbish. The "registry hack" is not so complicated that it can't be handled via GP - it's just a few values to disable the blocks - straight values, no mystery here, no machine-specific considerations. This would be incredibly simple to apply via GP, or via the administrative templates, as explained in the KBase link.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[arivanov]

This is not really applicable here:

1. I bet that some of the code is not Microsoft's. They have bought it and I would not be so sure about the right to modify it in the first place. In any case we are back to rewriting code which noone understands any more.
2. You can sandbox in a sandbox-friendly language (not the case here it is all C++ or C at that age) or if your code is written in a manner where sandboxing works. Classic example - using exemptions on out-of-memory or invalid pointers to allocate memory. I know a chap who writes everything like this and he used to work for MSFT at just about that time. Wanna sandbox that? Especially in a multithreaded environment? I doubt it. On top of that I can bet that the internals of the code in question reinvent the wheel left right and center and reimplement functions that are nowdays part of the foundation classes. As a result the size of the piece of code which you have to sandbox suddenly grows on an order of magnitude. And so on.
As I said, I for once can sympathise with a MSFT decision. I have no sympathy to the fact that they do not admit to the underlying reason which is using formats that are not open, well defined and standardised (nothing to do with security), but that is a different story.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[syousef]

If a student has been held back that long, the old notes are probably not going to help

I don't suppose you've heard of lifelong learning, or life getting in the way of study.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[ianare]

So, what happened? Where you able to retrieve the text, if so, how?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anomolous Cowturd]

The lesson to learn here is that Microsoft file formats are good for about 10 to 15 years if that. If you plan to keep your data longer than that, if you hope for your business, your government, your history to last longer than a decade, proprietary de-facto "standards" just aren't an option.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[plaxion]

My thoughts exactly. But at least we can look on the bright side... we can still open these formats in Open Office. Which, if you think about it, means that MS is actually pushing users who have older stuff into using OOo. And for at least some of them, the first time they use OOo might also be the last time they use MS Office because they'll realize that they don't need to be paying Microsoft a big chunk of money for programs that don't always do what they want and that they can get a suite of programs that does what they want for free.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Just print every single document and store it in an archive somewhere. If it's good enough for the Imperium of Man it's good enough for the US of A.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[umghhh]

This need to be noted: from my experience people do not buy msOffice - they either get it in 'free' packets together with their hw or they have the choice made for them by mighty admins (or whoever that is that makes decision about purchase of this or that software for big organisations).

Fortunately there are alternatives one can use if ms products fail - the results may not be ideal but better than nothing. I do not understand why all this fuss about such policy then.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a career student shouldn't still be doing their PhD 12 years after they started their undergrad.

And anyone that stores notes on eigenvectors in Word should never get a PhD anyway. Professional students look in texts for anything they learned between 1st and 3rd year.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Helldesk_Hound, your account appears to have been taken over by a 7 year old. Maybe if you get in touch with slashdot they'll reset your password so you can get it back?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[syousef]

This need to be noted: from my experience people do not buy msOffice - they either get it in 'free' packets together with their hw or they have the choice made for them by mighty admins (or whoever that is that makes decision about purchase of this or that software for big organisations).

I've seen people buy Office. I've also certainly been aware of large companies buying it. How do you think MS make money from it if it's not bought? If they didn't care about the home market there wouldn't be home specific versions.

Fortunately there are alternatives one can use if ms products fail - the results may not be ideal but better than nothing. I do not understand why all this fuss about such policy then.

Perhaps because some people have a life and have better things to do with it than waste it finding other software that aren't ideal to get around their software supplier crippling their software. Why should anyone waste time and/or money downloading a free office alternative, or applying registry hacks just to open a document they created 5 years ago. Way to demonstrate loyalty to the customer.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a career student shouldn't still be doing their PhD 12 years after they started their undergrad. Indeed. So Microsoft is only giving them a just, well earned punishment, by making it a big hassle to open their old documents. Praise Microsoft, for they are wise!

If I had the power, I'd make anybody with that old documents to eat their documents! Even if they were on 5½" hard discs! No information that old is good. It may even contain Though Crime from the time before the current Administration!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[hhawk]

Not supporting the older files is also good FUD about upgrading to new apps which support "OPEN" file formats, which we know MS is trying to hard to push through international standard bodies. This open formats are designed to avoid extactly these types problems, ""E.g., silly users making use of older insure file formats."" Microsoft saves the day once again!! ;)

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Mistlefoot]

The list includes quite a variety of formats including Word for Mac in 2001 and 2004. Those would be about 6 and 3 years old respectively. Doesn't this pretty much make Word for Mac 2004 virtually useless since you can't trust that the documents you sent to someone can be easily opened.

And on another note, the steps to fix this are as easy as running a simple patch - while the steps are given to change registry settings it is an easy procedure for anyone who wants to fix it. The problem is, again, how can I expect the person receiving my document will be able to find out how to read it?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[marcello_dl]

> If you read the knowledge base article, you'll see that the default allowed old-version goes back to before even Word 95. PowerPoint 95, but not 97, is blocked. It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

I do not agree, but that's irrelevant.

What's relevant is that instead of the obvious choice (open a dialog box like "This document is in an old format which poses security risks if coming from an untrusted source. Open anyway? (yes) (no) (always) (never)") the guys at MS decide what you can or can't access with your new PC.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Heembo]

I do professional presentation work - nothing is even close to PowerPoint in terms of robustness and look and feel. Word is a bloated mess, but nothing is even close to being as responsive (for lack of a better word). The finance world uses Excel. The entire finance world. duh. It's hard to quantify - but Word, PowerPoint and Excel are unmatched in excellence. OpenOffice.org is nice - but buggy and a little "off" in terms of the user experience. Google's apps are neat for personal use - but not for a pro. I use Firefox and Thunderbird for email - Outlook is awful. But parent, you missed the point. MS is doing this primary for security concearns. These old formats never even considered security in their design. Remember the WMF flaws? Do you really expect MS to go back and security-proof these old formats? I hate MS monopoly as much as the rest of SD, but you can call me a fool or a sock puppet - but I'm not moving from office until something better comes out. And I'm glad MS turned off these potential attack vectors case I do not need a 10+year old word interpreter to do ANY of my business.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, hogwash. The question is not "would you like to access this file, or not?". The question is "would you rather have access using formats which you probably don't use (and can easily upgrade away from), or would you rather we spend our time on new features?". Software decisions are not as simple as yes-or-no; they're what-to-spend-time-on. And yes, maintaining existing features takes time. (We even have a term for it if you don't: bit-rot.)

And no, they're not "forcing" anybody to do anything. If you want the latest Office, you have to upgrade your ancient (ancient!) files first. Needing to upgrade A when you upgrade B is not a new concept; they do it every release for values A=hardware and B=Windows.

Geez, do people really have that many PowerPoint95 files sitting around? If they've been using MS Office for 13 years, you'd think they'd be used to Microsoft adding and removing features at will. Get over it.

I can't run my 68K Mac apps on my Macbook, either, or my a.out binaries on my x86-64 Linux workstation. But I don't really care. You know why? Because 13 years is enough fucking time to upgrade!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

They implied the vulnerabilities by dropping support "for security reasons".

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Swampash]

PowerPoint 95, but not 97, is blocked. It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

Yeah, only every presentation created during the years 1995, 1996, and 1997. That can't be many, right? And I bet none of them are important anyway.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[cnettel]

That's what Office 2003 used to do. Click-yes syndrome is a dangerous thing.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[LordSnooty]

You've not used OpenOffice then? Because if you have, you'd know the experience is a world away from MS Office*. Plus, you must like me know novice computer users, who know exactly how to do a particular task in Word, but give them an alternative and it's like Lost In Space.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

I guess you should stop speaking in English then - that's a deal older than 10 years old. Similarly the ASCII representation of it should be banned.

Please. Just getting rid of something because it's old is ridiculous. I *know* I have documents that are in those formats - in fact I have an entire thesis written in Word 2 because we were not permitted to use Latex. I'm converting most of them to OpenOffice precisly because of this reason though - and it's surprising just how much I have in ancient formats.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[howlingmadhowie]

the problem is, people bought a word processor from microsoft 10 years ago with the understanding that it will always be a word processor. if microsoft decides not to support the documents created by the word processor in newer versions, it should supply the paying customer with an update free-of-charge.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[hairyfeet]

Try Open Office 1.1.5. I haven't tried it to see if it is true of the latest and greatest(I do most of my Document work on a 1.1Ghz Celeron and prefer the non-bloat of 1.1.5) but I just opened a word 6 doc in Open Office 1.1.5 and it rendered perfectly. It is also nice to have 1.1.5 lying around on a cd for those times when you have to work on an older machine, as I've found it runs better on pre 2.0Ghz machines than the newer Office. And lets face it, for most Office work(documents, email, maybe a little spreadsheet work) anything over 1Ghz does the job just fine given adequate RAM.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[bytesex]

I'm sure if the guys from antiword, catdoc, abiword and openoffice can (re)write an interpreter, then so can some guys at microsoft. The older formats are so featureless, that you should be able to write a renderer (at least) using perl or visual basic or something.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Angostura]

Originally from http://thedailywtf.com/

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[KDR_11k]

Why? That new version will only work with new files (and probably not on a PC that still uses a 10 year old version...), the old version will keep working as it is.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Put Down the Chair and Step Away from the Window !!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[howlingmadhowie]

so basically: "you, the customer, have to buy a new version of our software every x years because we're going to change our software to make it necessary". i wonder what would happen if one company had a monopoly on cars and tank stations? would they regularly change tank station nozzles so as to force people to replace perfectly good cars?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Tony Hoyle]

Wordpad on XP produces/reads word 95 documents.

Killing that makes the doc format a lot less useful.. off that MS would restrict the use of their own product.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Graff]

If you read the knowledge base article, you'll see that the default allowed old-version goes back to before even Word 95. PowerPoint 95, but not 97, is blocked. It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point. Intrestingly enough, it looks like this update blocks ALL versions of files saved by Word for the Mac. It even blocks the most current version of Word for the Mac, Word 2004 for Mac.

Hmm, can anyone say anti-competitive abuse of a monopoly? Yes, I know there are some alternatives to Word but I've had nothing but odd problems when I use Open Office or Apple's Pages. In the business world you are pretty much required to send people Word documents, even if you are sending them a resume. If you don't use Word you are playing russian roulette with your file, maybe it will work, maybe there will be some odd issue like the page headers not printing properly.

I really wish we could all get on the same page and come up with a good, highly accepted, replacement format to Microsoft Word and Excel. I know that alternative formats are being worked on but they all look like they have a snowball's chance in hell at getting accepted over the Word document format.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[mattpalmer1086]

There is a tool called DROID (Digital Record Object Identification) that will scan a bunch of files and identify the file formats (including the version, not just the mime type).

It is developed by the Digital Preservation department at the UK National Archives, licensed under a BSD license, and is available from source forge:

http://droid.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Introduction

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[ta bu shi da yu]

...and that's assuming that everyone upgraded, which they didn't given the cost of Office '07.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[ta bu shi da yu]

I meant Officer '97.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[catman]

Way to demonstrate loyalty to the customer.
So why is it that so many customers stay loyal to such a supplier? My guesses are

• they don't know that there are workable alternatives,
• they use Windows/Office the way I do - i.e. when they are paid to do it.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Peter_JS_Blue]

which is not all that unreasonable I suppose for formats greater than 10 years old Thats the problem !

Many companies will have legal documents, contracts, etc that were saved 10+ years ago using those older version of MS Office.

They saved them because they might want to read them again in the future - but now they can't without a lot of effort.

I guess what I am trying to say is that documents should be "Write once - read forever".

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just Microsoft trying to force people to pay for upgrades every few years instead of using old versions. I don't follow. If you're still using your old version of Word the old file format will continue to open just fine. Upgrading causes the problem here.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[rbanffy]

It's 5¼, not 5½.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[rucs_hack]

Playing devil's advocate here, but there are a lot of career students. Some might even need to take a look at their first year notes on eigenvectors because they need to deal with it in the last year of their Ph.D, and they remember really liking the prof that year.

So they re-install office without this patch, and open their files.

It's not hard....

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[MMC Monster]

Agree, but there is another point:

A lot of individuals have pointed to MSOffice as a standard, stating that future versions will always be able to read the older formats. Now there is absolute proof that it isn't true.

Another reason for an open format that is actively supported by multiple vendors.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[MMC Monster]

Are you saying that Microsoft doesn't have internal documentation on the Office95 formats?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, so it is, but ½ is too much easier to type with this layout ;-)

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to consider a post "Insightful" when it makes use of the dollar sign as an 'S' more than once. I didn't realize that joke was still funny.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

No one sane is using office 95. If I recall, there are some nasty hacks in windows written to accomidate brain dead office quirks. They were discovered when some one releases part of the windows source code a while back. I think it was doing something on the order of freeing a null pointer on start up or some such silly nonsense. A random pointer actually, and only if you start it from a desktop shortcut.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795

There are also various references to idiots and morons, some external, some within Microsoft. The file private\ntos\rtl\heap.c, which dates from 1989, tells us

// The specific idiot in this case is Office95, which likes
// to free a random pointer when you start Word95 from a desktop
// shortcut.

The full comment is this

//
// Protect ourselves from idiots by refusing to free blocks
// that do not have the busy bit set.
//
// Also refuse to free blocks that are not eight-byte aligned.
// The specific idiot in this case is Office95, which likes
// to free a random pointer when you start Word95 from a desktop
// shortcut.
//
// As further insurance against idiots, check the segment index
// to make sure it is less than HEAP_MAXIMUM_SEGMENTS (16). This
// should fix all the dorks who have ASCII or Unicode where the
// heap header is supposed to be.
//
    try {
        if ((!(BusyBlock->Flags & HEAP_ENTRY_BUSY)) ||
            (((ULONG_PTR)BaseAddress & 0x7) != 0) ||
            (BusyBlock->SegmentIndex >= HEAP_MAXIMUM_SEGMENTS)) {
 
//
// Not a busy block, or it's not aligned or the segment is
// to big, meaning it's corrupt
//
 
            SET_LAST_STATUS( STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER );
 
            return FALSE;
        }
    } except(EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER) {
 
        SET_LAST_STATUS( STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER );
        return FALSE;
    }

It's no biggie really, they just added some parameter checks so that trying to free an invalid pointer means an error is returned rather than corrupting the process's heap.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[arivanov]

I am saying that the documentation most likely does not fit the implementation. It is a classic result when only one implementation of a format exists. The bugs in the format become a feature of the format.

So while a documentation most certainly exist I can bet a case of beer that there is no way in hell to produce a working implementation without looking at the existing code or even reverse engineering it.

Further to this, even in cases where docs exists noone has even bothered to analyse the formats from a security perspective. WMF is a classic example. A format that allows you to execute stuff as a part of the definition and noone noticed this for many years until the shit hit the fan. I bet that there are gems like that in many of the other "prehistoric" format specs.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Deathlizard]

yes.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/922849 has the registry change details. You basically change a registry switch and it opened no problem afterwards.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[peragrin]

We use office '97 and office 2000 at work. In five years I bet we will still be using those two pieces. The main work stations run win95 and win98 as MSFT broke all networking compatiblity with our server with windows NT 4.0 and forward. The server is running an OS that was made in 1993.

If the hardware continues to run, why should we upgrade? The iPhone has more disk storage, and active memory than the server.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[everphilski]

NASA anyone

NASA's gone and converted everything to PDF, and put the database online where anyone can search through it.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[WhiteWolf666]

Holy Crap!

Word for Mac 2004 is the latest version of Office for the Mac.

This is going to be hellish in terms of my companies' recent switch to an all-mac infrastructure.

Boy do I hate MS.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[octopus72]

It's not really "ridiculously complicated" to change couple of integer values in a registry. It takes as much time as to find a certain button somewhere in the Word options. Yes, it's a bit inconvenient as there is no policy tool (for lazy admins:)), but they can write .reg file to do the job.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[coolGuyZak]

Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with the "file formats". A file format is not insecure.

Imagine a file format that specifies encrypting with a Caesar cipher, or checksumming with MD5. The file format is insecure, even when the associated program is 100% bug-free.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[turtledawn]

Holy crap, don't give them ideas! :)

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[LWATCDR]

My company still gets requests from people that need data from 15 years ago or more.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Xiaran]

I hate dash your hopes. But I have seen legal documents all over the place in Word format.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[walt-sjc]

Of course no sane person is sill using office 95. This isn't about office 95, it's about old DOCUMENTS. MS has a duty to their customers to provide a way to continue to read older documents. Office is one of their most popular and profitable products. They have billions in cash - certainly they could throw a few hundred K on a sandbox system to read old documents safely. That's the least they can do for customers who are PAYING to do just that.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculously complicated registry hack? Since when is creating a couple DWORD keys with a specific names and setting them to 0 a ridiculously complicated hack?

And if you don't think there is an easy way to deploy it, such as through Active Directory, then you have no business attempting to administer such a network because you are a clueless fucktard. Pushing such keys via GPOs without login scripts is painfully easy. They're called custom administrative templates, and yes they can target any portion of the registry, not just the Policies subkeys. Learn how to do your job.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[swillden]

Classic example - using exemptions on out-of-memory or invalid pointers to allocate memory. I know a chap who writes everything like this and he used to work for MSFT at just about that time. Wanna sandbox that?

Nope. Don't sandbox, virtualize. Create a tiny VM that has only the minimal OS needed to run the core of the code, and run the unsafe code in there. The tiny OS doesn't need to have any device support, just a bit of memory management plus a set of APIs that pass through to the real OS outside, with parameter validation.

MS has all of the technology needed to do this. If they don't want to make a truly minimal OS, they could always just use Windows Mobile, with all of the optional components removed. It wouldn't be trivial, but neither would it be a huge chunk of work.

It would probably cost them fewer dollars to implement a virtualized "sandbox" for that old code than it will to handle the support calls their move is going to create. OTOH, the virtualization approach would only help with security, it wouldn't encourage people to upgrade.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Robber Baron]

Are you saying that Microsoft doesn't have internal documentation on the Office95 formats? Haven't you been paying attention? What do you think this article is about? They upgraded Office and now they CAN'T READ THEM ANYMORE! No-one can!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[bigpat]

I've seen people buy Office. I've also certainly been aware of large companies buying it. How do you think MS make money from it if it's not bought? If they didn't care about the home market there wouldn't be home specific versions. Yes, some people do actually make the decision to buy Office. But I think the overall point is a good one. 'Most people' are probably not choosing to buy office for themselves because of its features or "innovation" but rather because of vendor lock-in by all those other people that simply get MS Word already installed and the greatest number of installations are probably corporate installations where OPM (Other People's Money) attitudes prevail. And there is a home version simply because they want to upsell corporate (OPM) buyers.

There is basically nothing compelling about Microsoft Office except that most people are still using Word and Excel. There might have been some compelling feature when there was a healthy competitive market for Formatted Text and Spreadsheet editors which precipitated a switch, I don't remember. But I think that the current dominance was more a result of Microsoft's blatant bundle and lock-in strategy.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[jcaldwel]

You've not used OpenOffice then? Because if you have, you'd know the experience is a world away from MS Office*.

True! That's why I had my non-techie dad uninstall Office07 and install OO.org on his PC. Their recent UI mangling has made it a nearly unusable product.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[marcello_dl]

Click yes syndrome occurs on environments with too many dialogs. Trying an OS which updates centrally through a package system andd has no shareware nagging screens might help. :)
Anyway do you really think being cut off from documents is better than shifting responsibility on the user, which in this particular case is more than acceptable? I disagree.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[stewbacca]

I do professional presentation work - nothing is even close to PowerPoint in terms of robustness and look and feel.

Apple Keynote passed PowerPoint in "look and feel" the day it was released, and is at least as robust as PowerPoint now in version 2. This still doesn't solve the problems of proprietary formats, though.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo!

Reminds me of when you try to save *any* Office document in a format MSFT feels doesn't support their "cause" (maintain the monopoly...as opposed to providing any customer value) -- There's a series of warnings that goes something like:

If you save in this format certain features supported by the latest version of Office 200X will not work. Are you SURE you want to save in this format?...and then,

Are you REALLY sure you want to save your document in this out-dated, likely-to-soon-be-unsupported format?...

Okay. It's your funeral buddy. Still sure?...

ad nauseum.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop that. You are just supposed to bash MS here, not make them sound reasonable.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Hatta]

Think about a grad student in any of the sciences. It's very likely that someone who got their PhD 10 years ago may want to go back and grab a graph out of their 1997 thesis presentation for use today. That data is still good and still useful 10 years later, the file format its stored in cannot be considered obsolete.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Hatta]

I do professional presentation work - nothing is even close to PowerPoint in terms of robustness and look and feel.

Have you tried LaTeX Beamer?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Just Some Guy]

while still taking a big step towards getting rid of support for those old formats entirely, which is not all that unreasonable I suppose for formats greater than 10 years old.

In other news, Photoshop still supports 16 year old formats.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[RobBebop]

For the 3000 features? No, at least most don't. They buy Office for universal compatibility s that they can exchange documents with everyone.

Mostly true. A decade ago, the competition was WordPerfect. I was a young teen at the time, but found using Office to be better than WordPerfect. So, at the time, they did actually win on merit.

With the (recent) advent of OpenOffice as a usable/stable tool (three years ago, I wouldn't have recommended it to anybody) Microsoft needed to leverage their "compatibility" doctrine.

These days, Open Office is more compatible with both itself and older versions of MS Office. It actually turns out that currently, there are compelling technical reasons to use MS Office. It integrates better with e-mail and has many more "Collaboration" features (I loath those feature, but many people find them valuable).

So, the cycle continues... as Microsoft fights tooth-in-nail to remain the dominant player. And presently, killing off their old formats... while destructive, immoral, and rude... is probably the best thing to do to ensure that customers upgrade to the latest thing with all of it's bells-and-whistles.

My question is... do they offer a utility to up-convert older *.doc files to the latest *.docx format? Because if they do, then they are being responsible and this whole story is flamebait.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[DavidHumus]

>> It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.
> I can only speculate that you've not worked in any institutions that have persisted for more than 10 years?

Hard as it is to believe, not only have some institutions been around longer than that, they have legal requirements to access old documents. I used to work at an investment management firm that kept not only old records but the old machines to read them. In the worst case, this old machine was a Wang word processor - a behemoth (the size of four or five washing machines lined up) that read 8-inch floppies.

While it might make sense to convert these, it's not clear what the legal status is of such copies. Also, a conversion is not simple and may lose important information (like timestamps).

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[secPM_MS]

I am not on the Office security team, but I think that I understand the issues they are facing.

There are at least three obvious means for users to handle deprecated formats:

1 Make the registry changes indicated in the KB article. Given that there may be vulnerabilies in the legacy conversion routines, perform conversion in a separate non-administrative user account to prevent system compromise.

2 Keep a copy of your existing O12 or earlier Office software. Run it (probably in a VM so you can use it 10 years or more from now) to convert legacy formats to more recent formats.

3 Buy commercial format conversion software. I certainly used to do this a lot in the past, in a different company, when we were taking data from a wide variety of sources.

Many of the file formats listed are by third parties, not Microsoft. Intelligent deep fuzzing has become very good in the past year or two. Microsoft has and uses these fuzzers as well. It is reasonable to assume that the Office team looked at the handling of these old formats.

Maintaining support for legacy and legacy 3d party formats gets expensive, particularily when you have to rewrite the parser and more expensive indeed if you have to try and reverse engineer the format itself because you have no documentation (after all, some of these formats were written by third parties who may no longer be extant). Such effort has to be evaluation in terms of value for the customer, as compared to writing new functionality.

Customers do have possible mitigations to address the issue. As a matter of configuration policy, you always keep a copy of your tools as well as your data, as the tools change over time as well. This is as true for documents as it is for source code and build environments. Customers who have legacy documents should either have the legacy tools that can open these documents or third party tools that can do so. Microsoft provides 2 means of handling the issue (1 and 2, above). It is more convenient to the user to have these natively supported, but at some point the customer value is better served by moving on and allowing those customers who still need the legacy support to implement the appropriate mitigations.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehehe, took me a second to get it. +FUNNY

"Did anyone convert our corporate archives before patching every copy of Office in Redmond? Shit..."

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a ridiculously complicated registry hack is required to enable the converters for the old documents, there's no easy way to apply it, for example as an Active Directory group policy. We're left with error-prone methods like push tools & login scripts. Just so you know, there is indeed a GPO method of fixing the problem...

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[novakyu]

Even a career student shouldn't still be doing their PhD 12 years after they started their undergrad. Are you sure about that?

Most people already finish their PhD *at least* 9 years after they start undergrad (that's assuming 4 years of undergrad and 5 years of graduate school, which is actually lower than average). And suppose someone graduated from college, spent a few years (2 to 3, maybe?) in the industry, and then decided to go back and earn a PhD (I suppose there are a number of reasons for this, ranging from the PhD being necessary to advancement in career to becoming disinterested in making money and (re-)entering academia). That's easily 12 years, and I didn't have to concoct any unusual scenario like someone waking out of coma after 10 years.

As for what kind of information one would be looking for ... well, how about the syllabus? The information in that, like which textbook is used in the course and what will be covered, is not available in any commonly-sold textbook. Of course, this doesn't fit with the PhD thesis scenario, but if you just imagine someone staying out of school just a little longer (oh ... 5 to 8 years) and then applying to grad school, you can see how this will be a problem: some grad school applications ask for textbook used in the course (to gauge the level and breadth of the course), and ... guess what, that information is locked away in a "deprecated" file format.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[KDR_11k]

Well, it's a word processor. You can still print the texts or convert to formats like RTF.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a career student shouldn't still be doing their PhD 12 years after they started their undergrad.

My mom earned her Master's almost 40 years after her undergraduate degree. Though she decided not to pursue her PhD, it was a possibility.

Now, she didn't have to worry about looking up old notes or papers in an incompatible format because all of her undergrad notes were taken in longhand. But it's silly to suggest 12 years is an unthinkable amount of time. I've known plenty of people who got advanced degrees many years down the line.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Msoft is giving us a glimpse of what things look like under the hood.

Looks like in 95 the country's documents were running on bubblegum and bailing wire.

Pretty scarry.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Pope Raymond Lama]

This is not any ordinary "error". It is proprietary format obsolecense. Every other argument on why one should attain to open file formats will tell you about this happening in "the future".

It just lloks like 2008 is "the future" already. :-)

Actually, I myself would like to believe this had been made out of pure _evil_ intents emanating from Redmond. But since they are getting pressed about file-format issues by governments everywhere, and this just make a strong case for helping weaken their monopoly in the Office Suite space, I'd say it is plain stupdity. (so, yes, an "error" like you said..but given its timing, an unbeliably stupid one). An stupitdy I welcome. I hope now people start moving their files to open formats and realising strong fileformats are jsut that: a way to become a hostage.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[tomthegeek]

Because a ridiculously complicated registry hack is required to enable the converters for the old documents, there's no easy way to apply it, for example as an Active Directory group policy. We're left with error-prone methods like push tools & login scripts. If it's a pure registry tweak then it can be applied using a GPO with a custom ADM file. Might be a bitch to create the ADM file but after that it would be as simple as any other GPO setting.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should anyone stop supporting old document formats? Are the files created a long ago no longer important? How about 100 year old books? Should we burn them all? I don't know about 100-year old books, but I am all for burning all 60-year (and above) old people.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Mister Whirly]

That would be pretty tough for a Ph. D. candidate to grasp....

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[rbanffy]

For ASCII-happiness, I usually write 3.5 and 5.25, but that's just me.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[cp.tar]

That's what Office 2003 used to do. Click-yes syndrome is a dangerous thing.

You're trying to say that simply forbidding stuff is better than giving the user an option. Cancel or Allow?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[voice_of_all_reason]

Oh yeah, this'll be a blast...

Investment Banker: Sorry, I can't provide the data for our auditing requirements.

Party Van: Why don't you have a seat over there...

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Helldesk Hound]

> I am not on the Office security team, but I think that I understand the issues they are facing.

OK so what you're saying is that you are not basing what you're saying on actual personal knowledge, and therefore what you're saying is effectively useless!

> There are at least three obvious means for users to handle deprecated
> formats:
>
> 1 Make the registry changes indicated in the KB article. Given that there
> may be vulnerabilies in the legacy conversion routines, perform conversion
> in a separate non-administrative user account to prevent system compromise.

Why should a user be forced to hack that arcane beast known as the Windows Registry just because Micro$oft decided to make some arbitrary changes to M$ Office and thus prevent the user from being able to open certain types of files?

Answer: No user should be forced to do that.

> 2 Keep a copy of your existing O12 or earlier Office software. Run it
> (probably in a VM so you can use it 10 years or more from now) to convert
> legacy formats to more recent formats.

You don't understand it don't you. The user WAS able to open those types of files using their current version of M$ Office. Now they can't - but it's the same version of M$ Office that they're using. If M$ is wanting to disable support for old, legacy, non-M$ file formats then the correct time to do that is when a new version is released. Thus, whatever is the next version after M$ Office 2007 should have been the one to no longer have support for what has been dropped, but there should be a downloadable plugin to provide that support if needed. That way the number of users using those formats can be measured.

> 3 Buy commercial format conversion software. I certainly used to do this
> a lot in the past, in a different company, when we were taking data from
> a wide variety of sources.

Why do that when the software they already have had been able to open those formats without difficulty or error?

> Many of the file formats listed are by third parties, not Microsoft. Intelligent
> deep fuzzing has become very good in the past year or two. Microsoft has and
> uses these fuzzers as well. It is reasonable to assume that the Office team
> looked at the handling of these old formats.

Actually, it is reasonable to "assume" nothing in these circumstances.

> Maintaining support for legacy and legacy 3d party formats gets expensive,
> particularily when you have to rewrite the parser and more expensive indeed
> if you have to try and reverse engineer the format itself because you have
> no documentation (after all, some of these formats were written by third
> parties who may no longer be extant).

Diddums. I'm sure that Microsoft can afford to throw a few more dollars at its cash cow. And, with regard to "reverse engineering" those file formats, welcome to the world that the rest of us are living in. You're only bitching about what M$ makes everybody else do.

AND, we're not talking about creating new parsers. We're talking about M$ basically disabling existing functionality.

> Such effort has to be evaluation in terms of value for the customer, as
> compared to writing new functionality.

> Customers do have possible mitigations to address the issue. As a matter
> of configuration policy, you always keep a copy of your tools as well as
> your data, as the tools change over time as well.

I believe there is an expression that has the two phrases "grandmother" and "suck eggs". But having said that, one would hope that M$ itself had kept the necessary data and tools to edit the source code for the parsers that M$ has just unilaterally and arbitrarily disabled!

> This is as true for documents as it is for source code and build
> environments. Customers who have legacy documents should either
> have the legacy tools that can open these documents or th

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[afidel]

Uh, anything that can be done in the registry can be done via group policy! In fact if you don't know how to do this you shouldn't be let near a GPO because it's so basic that the only place you should be learning that kind of stuff is in a lab environment, either corporate or academic. I guess I know where the stigma against Windows admins comes from, people who know just enough to be very dangerous.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[2short]

We're talking about 10 year old software. I can "sandbox" the entire computer it ran on dozen of times over.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[fwarren]

It's very likely that few documents exist in such old formats at this point.

Back in 1998 I worked at a company which had been purchased by a larger company. The larger company was planning on stripping everything of value from where I worked and then close the place down, which they actually did in February of 1999.

I spent 6 months converting CAD drawings and documents from floppies (5 1/4, and 3 1/2 inch) and Bernoulli disks. I had to convert stuff from 1984 through 1995 into newer formats, which would be Word 97, Excel 97 and whatever was the current version of Autocad.

So I had to deal with converting stuff from Macs, converting EPS's. There was some document format used by the government contractors for military, that was used in the late 80's and early 90's. There were WordPerfect documents, lotus 1-2-3, other CAD formats.

They thought that all that stuff would be available to them forever. Now, they will have to convert all of that stuff PLUS everthing we did from 97 to 99 to a new format. I am sure it will happen like it did for me. They will someday in 2015 have to pull out an old CD I had burned back in 1998. They will find a file with a name like "System 3 Analyzer procedure to detect aluminum and cyanide in a solution to 5 parts per billion.doc" and realize that Office 2014 does NOT open up anything older than Office 2007 formatted documents. Then they will have to go out and find some half assed converter to open that old document. Then have 3 people take 6 months converting all of those old formatted documents.

I wish them luck. A Word document done on the mac with 75 eps images each 2 or 3 megs in size then converted to Word for Windows 97 is NOT real stable to begin with. Just inserting a paragraph can corrupt a document like that. I would not like to be the person doing the conversion with a third party product from Word 97 to Word 2014.

With any luck, someone will have a pirate copy of a VMware image of Windows XP or 2000 with a copy of Office 2000 in it.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[howlingmadhowie]

well, you can convert to a version of rtf, but there are many, many different versions, and microsoft's version of rtf changes subtly with each release of word.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Ralph Spoilsport]

And they are looking forward to you dying in one of their wars.

RS

(age: 48)

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[secPM_MS]

I have been at MS just over 4 years (working in security the entire time). It is my observation that MS is very reluctant to break back compat. There is an app compat team that represents customer interests and tries to keep teams from breaking things. Yet we do it. We do do it for security. Microsoft has a standard that products should be safe by default. If a user wishes to use a dangerous feature or legacy capability, a means will typically be provided to do this, but the user / administrator making the change needs to have some appreciation of the choices they are making. A old format or protocol that is no longer appropriate for the security environment will eventually be turned off by default. This is for the good, if not the convenience of the user, who may not properly appreciate the associated security risks.

Thus the transition from XP SP1 to XP SP2 broke a number of things as default settings of the OS were changed to make the OS security more appropriate. Similarily, a number of defaults were changed and additional defense in depth measures were added in the XP to Vista transition, as the OS was hardened further.

If the Office team said that the default availability of these converters was removed because of security concerns, believe them. They would not have antagonized the user base for a lesser reason. Note that the security community has observed a great increase in sophisticated attacks against apps, and old legacy code and protocols are a primary target. Having these off by default is wise. Office is a particular target of attackers and the Office team is behaving responsibly in hardening their functionality and configuring the default status to be secure. Organizations and/or users that need to parse and/or convert such docs can do so and are provided the necessary tools to do so.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[msuarezalvarez]

You are using the word insecure in the meaning related to `it is insecure to obtain it from untrusted sources'. Here we are discussing the fact that Office will not open files the user already has...

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Darinbob]

Doubt it's really about security at all; I'm guessing it's probably more about 'nudging' the few people still using old versions of the software to upgrade:

I agree here. There was a problem a decade ago with Word 97 that would claim to save to an older Word format when requested, but actually write the data in RTF format with a .doc extension. Users complained and the official "solution" Microsoft gave back was to have make sure that everyone reading the documents upgraded to the latest version of Office... That is, the vast majority of Word users needed to send Microsoft money so that they could read documents created by the minority of users who had upgraded.

Of course a lot of software companies are all about product and not service, but most usually wait a couple of releases before removing compatibility so that they don't alienate their paying customers.

(and Office 97 was when it started going downhill, being slower, taking more memory, and introducing the hated Office Assistant)

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[msuarezalvarez]

2 Keep a copy of your existing O12 or earlier Office software. Run it (probably in a VM so you can use it 10 years or more from now) to convert legacy formats to more recent formats.

Is that even legal, without buying a new copy?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[rucs_hack]

That would be pretty tough for a Ph. D. candidate to grasp....

AHA! I can legitimately do the whole 'you insensitive clod' thing here, because I am one :-) For a few more weeks at least.

I lost many months of carefully made notes many years ago (as in windows 3.1 days) because the company who made the app I used went under, and I couldn't find the app again when I needed it, a couple of years later. That taught me to always keep a copy of whatever program I used to create a file that I intended to keep.

Nowadays, knowing more, I could have recovered all my 'lost' data, so it annoys me that I didn't keep my unopenable notes.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Mister Whirly]

Or just kill a few trees and make hard copies. Those tend to never go "obsolete" and can be re-created in any of the current formats.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[secPM_MS]

I have no idea. It would seem to be reasonable use, but who knows with license terms, which change over time. Certainly, MS is supporting virtualization at the OS level and clearly expects customers to use it. I expect that the answer may differ for enterprise users than for individuals. I have separate copies of Office 2000, Office 2003, and Office 2007 (I gave my daugher my Office 97 or 98, I don't remember). Thus, I have the necessary licenses as a user to play this game. I would expect small businesses to also have individual licenses. In the enterprise, I don't know how it would be handled. You wouldn't need many licenses to set up a converter on a terminal server for an organization.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Darinbob]

but not for a pro

Quite a lot of professional writers despise Word as being unsuitable for producing professional documents.

I don't know the current state, but a decade ago Word was incapable of even creating a suitable index for the technical manual we had for a product. The manual was too large for Word to open so it were split into chapters, and Word didn't know how to combine the table of contents and indices. So the professional doc writers would spit and curse the idiot who ordered them to dump the professional Framemaker and go with the wannabe Word.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[coolGuyZak]

I'm using secure in the meaning "the data in the file is vulnerable to attack"--that an attacker can view or modify information they lack the formal privilege to access.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Heembo]

Yea, you do not use WORD for make a book - you use formal book authoring software. But doe day-to-day bizDocs, word is on top for a reason.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Heembo]

That's really nice for the 1% market share that uses Apple products have in corporate America, but some of us are living in the real world.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[msuarezalvarez]

Well it supports virualization at the OS level provided you get a new copy...

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[n0ano]

You mean something like the Unix `file' command that has been available since, oh, forever? To quote from the man page:

There has been a file command in every UNIX since at least Research Version 4 (man page dated November, 1973). The System V version introduced one significant major change: the external list of magic number types. This slowed the program down slightly but made it a lot more flexible.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[celtic_hackr]

Wow, any student who needs notes from 10 years ago has more serious problems than not being able to open an old Word file!

And the simple solution for all this?

Download Open Office open the file and save to a newer Office format.
Problem solved. Now how hard is that?

Nothing more to see here, please continue pissing in the M$ wind.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[mattpalmer1086]

Yes, very similar. The main differences are that DROID is cross platform, and its signature system allows it (to a limited extent) to parse into binary file types to extract more detailed version information. There's also a GUI to let non-techies figure out what files they have.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[syousef]

So they re-install office without this patch, and open their files.

It's not hard....

You're assuming they know about the patch. You're also assuming that such a ridiculous hassle is reasonable. People have better things to do than learn how registry hack their fucking word processor! If it were part of the UI it'd be a minor hassle. As it stands you have to search the net to find the MS KB article to work out how to do it. Even then do you really want non-techies having to hack their registries (easy to do correctly but if you get it wrong you bork your machine).

It simply isn't reasonable. People who are defending this are insane.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[syousef]

Wow, any student who needs notes from 10 years ago has more serious problems than not being able to open an old Word file!

Spoken like a completely ignorant fool from the ADHD Playstation generation. People will go out of their way to get hold of "old" information in the form of notes and text books, and in the case of famous scientists historians would just about kill to get hold of their notes.

Imagine if Einstein lived in the age of MS Word. 30 years later no one could read his original manuscripts.

It's clear you know less about the academic world than you think you do.

Download Open Office open the file and save to a newer Office format.
Problem solved. Now how hard is that?

Not hard at all, if you're aware of the problem (or the error messages are good enough), if you have an Internet connection, if you know about Open Office. In other words not hard if you're a geek. Oh and please be prepared for your layout to be screwed up completely.

Nothing more to see here, please continue pissing in the M$ wind. ...and it's stupid attitudes like yours that keep MS dominant.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[syousef]

Or just kill a few trees and make hard copies. Those tend to never go "obsolete" and can be re-created in any of the current formats.

Printing takes time and money. Storing printed text costs space (money). Re-entering data takes time and money.

You shouldn't have to go through this kind of SHIT to open a fucking word processor document a few years after you create it.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[PitaBred]

"Dude, I built my house of of straw. It's all the wolf's fault that it blew down!" I don't sympathize with Microsoft. I can understand why they made the current decision in light of previous bad decisions, but it's still their own stupid house they built, and are now having to deal with the structural integrity issues of.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Kalriath]

My god, Twitter, how many accounts do you have?!?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[digitrev]

Oh yeah, that's fine. Just uninstall and reinstall a common program that has, for over 10 years, been able to work with old formats. And then ignore the constant pokes and prods to update. Oh wait. What if you bough the SP with this patch automatically applied in the install procedure. Oops. Then you have to go hit up google and try to find a way to fix it. If you're lucky, you punch in the right keywords and find the article for the registry hack and do it properly. But say you make a mistake. Then you have to go find a geek to fix it for you. Or say you don't find this article. Then you have to go install some program to convert it. If you're lucky there, you get a good program and manage to convert no problem.

Look. It's a pain in the ass problem that has no reason for existing, aside from lazy coding on the part of MS programmers.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[hadaso]

> The issue is that Microsoft is shipping insecure code in Office 2007 and 2003
> which may break when these files are opened and allow malicious executable code
> to run in the user's security context. Rather than fix this insecure code in
> a shipping product, their policy is to turn off the code and tell the user,
> "if you want to take the risk, turn it back on, but we won't make it easy."

Then perhaps all one needs to do in order not to have to tweak one's registry is to just remove all kind of security, firewall, anti-virus and all, and wait for a little while until a virus comes along and does what's needed to turn on the risky code... Shouldn't take long now that MS has published precise instructions how to turn the risky code on and pointers on what's needed to exploit it...

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[stewbacca]

That's really nice for the 1% market share that uses Apple products have in corporate America, but some of us are living in the real world.

I'm sorry, I totally missed the point of what I'm sure was an otherwise informative, intelligent response. Oh yeah, and if "corporate America" is doing your designing, then yeah, PowerPoint IS pretty sweet! (You get what you deserve).

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[LuckyLuke58]

I like to think that Microsoft is not quite as important as the English language :)

Seriously though, I made a mistake when I wrote that, it is indeed not reasonable for MS to break support for a 10-year old format. Frankly they're just being their usual arrogant do-whatever-they-want-to-tighten-the-screws selves; the fact that they do this while the OOXML debacle is underway demonstrates the height of their arrogance - they really don't give a toss.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Heembo]

Sorry, I was moving way to fast. What I am saying is, Apple products are not popular in most corporations. For a large training organization - where presentation software is very critical to our success - it's a great deal cheaper (both in terms of maintaining hardware, understanding of the software, etc) to standardize on Windows/PowerPoint. There. Was that easier for you to understand?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[rucs_hack]

Look. It's a pain in the ass problem that has no reason for existing, aside from lazy coding on the part of MS programmers.

It's more likely they want to stop having to write the supporting code in for formats that are being used less and less.

Its a problem that only exists because the idea of standard file formats was resisted for so long, and also partly due to the huge amount of changes in file formats of late.

I'm not excusing it, the multitude of file formats was stupid, in retrospect, but they emerged because of a desire to keep people with a particuler product, and maximise earnings. The unix wars all over again, you might say.

It strengthens my own resolve to only use open formats from now on.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[ThePromenader]

Thank you!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring back the ptp - Paper-Tape punch...a very useful treeware archiving device - I still have a few tapes from my Uni days which can be re-read to restore the data, and it doesn't suffer the bit-rot of floppies...as long as damp/mice don't get at it :)

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

Not hard at all, if you're aware of the problem...In other words not hard if you're a geek.

It looks like only geeks go to schools these days, eg from a school's web site: "If students do not have MS Office on their computers at home they can download Openoffice at the following URL. This will allow them to produce documents they can open in school using Word, Excel, Access or Powerpoint."

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Poohsticks]

Not to be a MSFanboi but there are GPO's available for download directly from MS:

[http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=BA8BC720-EDC2-479B-B115-5ABB70B3F490&displaylang=en]

And even crazier - a bulk file conversion utility should you need it:

[http://support.microsoft.com/kb/941636/en-us] (see method 3)

Yeah, yeah... I know... M$oft suczors and all that.

Sheesh...all that whining and hand wringing for nothing.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

But this has absolutely nothing to do with the file format. As someone mentioned previously, the actual file format itself should not present security issues unless the program has flaws (and if it does, MS should fix them instead of removing support for old formats). Even if your talking about macros, then disable macro support for those file formats - absolutely no reason that any version of Office should not be able to open the document portions of old formats.

Also, as someone mentioned, Office is one of the biggest cash cows for Microsoft (probably the biggest due to Vista). That means MS has absolutely no excuse for not fixing poor coding or architectural issues.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[QuietObserver]

Actually, you can use WordPerfect to write a book; I've helped publish a book using WordPerfect, which was written entirely in WordPerfect (it looks very professional), and that is not 'formal book authoring software', but a very powerful word processor. And as for day to day docs, WordPerfect blows Word completely away with great features like Reveal Codes (the most powerful document editing tool I've ever encountered), Center on Margin, Flush Right, Indent, and the Properties Bar (which changes to meet your current document needs). Word is now, and has always been, a sorry excuse for a word processor. I only wish more OSS office publishers would follow WordPerfect's example.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[QuietObserver]

I totally agree. The best word processor for writing and publishing a book is actually WordPerfect; I helped publish a book that was entirely written in WordPerfect, in WordPerfect 9 (the WordPerfect Office 2000 version). There are things Word does a little better, I'll admit, but when it comes to actual word processing power, WordPerfect blows Word completely away.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Heembo]

Help me understand why WORD has such a massive market share?

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[RickRussellTX]

Allow me to specify. In this context, define "insecure" as "allowing malicious software to execute arbitrary code".

OK, yes, even by that definition, PowerPoint 4 is insecure because I believe it had a VB scripting component. But, given that you ignore the macros/VB scripts, the file data is not insecure by itself. It's the software reading the data that fails in an insecure way.

OK, yes, you could include WMFs in PowerPoint 4 files that could trigger arbitrary executable code.

Dang it, Microsoft! Just dang it!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[RickRussellTX]

OK, call off the dogs, Windows admins. I'm not an AD admin, and I admit it. At the time we were looking at this problem (like I said, Sept 2007), the documentation had not been fleshed out either.

The bulk converters, such as they are, do not address our our needs for several reasons:

• Office 2007 converter only converts to new Office Open XML format. Files won't work with Office 2003.
• Other bulk converters have various limitations, and pretty much all consist of macros that open the files in the target app and re-save them in Office 2003 format.
• Per my original post, many of the documents to be converted are nowhere near an accessible command line. They are on backup media, secured in a documents database, unavailable due to security concerns, etc.
• To be fair, applying the reg keys as scripts or GPOs is not that hard. I will admit to certain aggrandizement of that concern. But that still puts us in the position of running insecure code and subjecting our users to potential phishing attacks. Microsoft won't even correct the problem in Office 2007, their currently shipping product!

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Why didn't / wouldn't they just convert them to win97 documents? Thats a five minute Visual basic program you should have given to an intern back in 99.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

But the file format isn't really the problem here. ODF isn't really better in this case because it isn't supported in Word anyway (well, not without a plugin). So the real problem is Microsoft doesn't really care about the users or quality of its software and is taking the lazy way out of fixing a security issue. Microsoft is basically making a gamble that they will lose less custom from this than it would cost to fix properly. Personally I hope this comes back to burn them.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[freedumb2000]

Correct, in this office we still use Word 97 and Autocad 2000 and we are, believe it or not, productive.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Nail]

"believe them"?

That would imply some trust.

I trust vendors who don't try to hide the fact that they are disabling functionality in an installed product with a patch.

If security was actually the primary concern, I would think file formats that have actually proven themselves a danger would have gotten the axe (i.e. certain Microsoft Office file formats).

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[QuietObserver]

They have used their monopoly status in the OS market to take over the Office market. No version of Word has ever been able to hold a candle to WordPerfect in terms of sheer word processing power. WordPerfect has always had excellent indexing, superb editing tools, and simple, but powerful document construction tools. When Microsoft first came out with Word, WordPerfect had all the market share, but lost it with a combination of few minor mistakes, and Microsoft's monopoly power.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Heembo]

I always found that WordPefect felt "klunky" compared to Word. I think it because Microsoft used API's hidden to other developers? Regardless of feature set - for the average user, Word is just easier and smoother to use.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[QuietObserver]

I've used WordPerfect since version 4.2. Once you understand the keyboard shortcuts, WordPerfect become much faster and easier to use than Word could ever be; some commonly used examples in the WordPerfect for Windows versions are F7 for indent, Shift+F7 for Center on Margin, and Alt+F7 for Right Flush (all of which are features Word has no direct equivalent to).

There are shortcuts for anything that is text related, and WordPerfect makes good use of all of the function keys. Furthermore, you can change the entire document's primary font, font size, and many other things, simply by putting the cursor at the head of the document and changing the font, font size, etc. Reveal Codes also gives you the ability to see exactly what is in the document, so if the text starts looking weird (i.e. not the way you want it to), you can see exactly what's causing the problem, and resolve it easily (you can even delete codes from Reveal Codes). Furthermore, WordPerfect hasn't changed document formats since WordPerfect 6 (unless they've changed them after WordPerfect 12, I haven't tried using anything after that). Earlier versions simply ignore any codes they don't understand, and mark them as unidentified (I think the code is actually "unknown") in Reveal Codes.

All of those features simplify the writing process extremely. I've used Word, and I find it horrendously "klunky"; one of the biggest examples I can give is Word's tables, which can be extremely frustrating, and I've found to be very finicky and useless in expanding, whereas in WordPerfect, I've never had any problems getting them to do exactly what I want (I can also use simply keyboard strokes to add and delete rows, and they work more like a true spreadsheet than Word's).

Another thing, which is why I refuse to use Word for anything major, is that Word tends to make decisions (assumptions) on what you're looking to do based on how you type, whereas WordPerfect almost never assumes to know what you're trying to do, and on the rare occasion that it does, you can easily tell it to stop (while that can be an aide to someone who doesn't know much about typing, it severely hinders authors).

I could go on, as there are hundreds of things that WordPerfect makes easier (I think the site http://www.wpvsword.com/ explains many of these very well), but I believe I've made my point.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really glad you're not my admin, since there is an .adm file, and any BOFH worth $0.10 can push that out in policy.

Re:Default value goes back pretty far

[Selanit]

I've been attending university for nearly a decade now, with one year yet to go before I finally finish. And I still use old files. Not very often, admittedly, but once every two or three years I'll go back and read through old papers I wrote. I suppose it's a bit narcissistic, but I find it interesting to read old work and see how I've developed since then. It's rather interesting - it gives me a sense of accomplishment to see that a paper I wrote six years ago, even if it was good then, doesn't measure up to my current standard. I also find it interesting to read the teachers' comments now that I myself am a teacher, though most of those are handwritten in the margins of things rather than electronic.

Thankfully, I switched to OpenOffice.org as of build 643C in the pre-1.0 days. Stuff before that are in Word 97 format, but hey, OO.o can read those, so I'm sitting pretty.

Not really that bad

[ZeroPly]

I don't know if I'd characterize it as "mind-bogglingly complex". It's a series of registry edits. There will probably be appropriate .REG files released by various parties in the next few days, and if you're paranoid, it should take about 15 minutes to roll your own. As for users in non-managed environments, I don't know how many home users really try to access files that are over a decade old.

Re:Not really that bad

[deniable]

There's already an ADM file for group policy in the linked KB article. If you're using group policy, it's a five minute job for the whole domain.

Re:Not really that bad

[The Anarchist Avenge]

Ahhhh.... in the last year I've twice transferred documents from Windows 95-era computers to new machines running XP and vista. Both of them had files that easily dated back to 1997 if not earlier. There's a lot of legacy shit out there that people still use, and if it suddenly stops working for the home users, without an explanation, that's just a stupid idea.

Re:Not really that bad

[izomiac]

Home users having documents over a decade old probably isn't too uncommon. I'm 22 and I know that I have a few documents from my grade school days that are probably in one of these formats (I'll probably convert them to rtf now). The question is more, are most people who've used Windows for more than ten years comfortable making registry edits? (I don't know which to doubt more, human intelligence or historic Windows reliability...)

Re:Not really that bad

[whitehatlurker]

if you're paranoid

If I were paranoid, I'd not be using Microsoft Office.

Re:Not really that bad

[ianare]

are most people who've used Windows for more than ten years comfortable making registry edits? Warning: dreaded car analogy!
Are most people who've driven for more then 10 years comfortable with doing basic maintenance such as oil changes, spark plug replacement and gaping, tire rotation, etc?

For both cases, I would say "No, they're always asking me to do it for them."

Re:Not really that bad

[howlingmadhowie]

don't use rtf. there are hundreds of different rtf extensions and no one knows which ones will be supported by microsoft in the future. if you want to store information for the foreseeable future you can use a standard ascii-text or utf8-text, tex, html or odt and that's about it.

Re:Not really that bad

[jimicus]

My CV (resume for americans) has been stored in a file called "Curriculum Vitae.doc" since 1996.

It was originally produced in Word '95.

In that time, it's been through Word '95, '97, StarOffice 5.2, OpenOffice beta 642, OpenOffice 1.0 and now OpenOffice 2.1. I keep the canonical copy in the native format for whatever word processor I'm using because there's less risk of losing data that way - but I still save it as an old version if/when necessary. As a sysadmin, the idea of taking a job with a company which wants to upgrade 10 year old systems is not beyond the realms of probability and it doesn't faze me at all.

Registry edits don't intimidate me, but frankly if I'm working 8 hours/day on doing silly hacks like this I don't want to be having to do them at home. Makes me glad I bought a Mac and use OpenOffice.

Re:Not really that bad

[aussie_a]

Ahhhh.... in the last year I've twice transferred documents from Windows 95-era computers to new machines running XP and vista. Which means these people have access to someone who has the knowledge to change the default values.

There's a lot of legacy shit out there that people still use, and if it suddenly stops working for the home users, without an explanation, that's just a stupid idea. I find it more amazing people are using buggy 10 year old software. It was never that great to begin with with XP being a vast improvement!

Re:Not really that bad

[Bacon Bits]

I was talking to someone about this very thing a few weeks ago, but on the opposite end of the topic.

I was complaining how irritating it was to get Linux to use the proper resolution for my Dell 20" widescreen display (1680x1050). Every time I have to go into /etc and edit something manually that the default installer failed to handle I argue that the Linux model has failed me. My friend -- who has been known to call me to make simple registry edits on Windows -- kept insisting that modifying a simple text file in a well-documented and logical directory structure like /etc was something that all users simply should know how to do.

Me: "So, /etc is just a just a hierarchal text database of configurations, settings, and initialization scripts that the system requires to start and run properly."
Him: "Right. See? It's very simple."
Me: "That definition for /etc is also suitable for the Windows Registry."

Re:Not really that bad

[Spacejock]

I certainly do. I run an Atari ST emulator to access my files from 1986. Mostly old DTP files in Calamus, Scribus, Pagestream and more. More recently, I did convert most of my Office 4 docs to Office 97 once I upgraded, but that's where they've remained (I now use OpenOffice.)

Re:Not really that bad

[lskovlund]

You forget that the ability to document one's changes to the Registry are absolutely atrocious, you have to keep external documentation. With /etc, the documentation is neatly placed alongside the changes themselves.

Re:Not really that bad

[Bacon Bits]

You forgot the part where app devs think that means they don't need to provide documentation.

Re:Not really that bad

[Chemicalscum]

I don't know how many home users really try to access files that are over a decade old.

I have a whole directory of my wife's old Wordperfect 5 for DOS documents dating back to to 1990 sitting on my Gutsy system. I even reinstalled WP5 on Dosemu to enable hear to happily use them even though you can load them perfectly well into Openoffice. They have been migrated through DOS 5, DOS 6, Win 3.1, Win 95, Win 98, Caldera OpenLinux 2, Red Hat 6, Mandrake Linux (8, 9 and 10) to Ubuntu (Breezy, Dapper, Feisty and Gutsy) and they are still needed.

Re:Not really that bad

[PitaBred]

Except that /etc is text-based and human readable in most cases, not to mention easier to back up and restore portions (if not all) of, and almost completely portable between hardware, not to mention it stores only system-wide settings. The Windows registry is none of the above. There are configuration issues with Linux in some software, but the difference between Windows and Linux is that with Windows, if the GUI ain't working, the system ain't working. With Linux, the GUI isn't essential to operation of the system, and once you fix it once, it just keeps working.

Re:Not really that bad

[Bacon Bits]

Except that /etc is text-based and human readable in most cases, not to mention easier to back up and restore portions (if not all) of, and almost completely portable between hardware, not to mention it stores only system-wide settings. The Windows registry is none of the above.

Honestly, all of these are only true if you have no idea what you're doing on Windows and have no clue about what the registry does or how it works. Reg.exe does everything you want. 95% of the registry is readable text as most registry values are strings and integers, and everything can be exported and imported as plain text. The registry does much the same task as /etc, some /proc, and /dev. Much like Linux, once you understand how it's organized, it's not that hard. HKLM\Software (analog to /etc) is almost always portable. HKLM\SYSTEM (analog to /dev) almost never is.

The registry hives themselves can be opened from a remote system, or copied off and opened in that manner, too. Once again, you just have to know where things are located instead of thinking MS didn't give you access to it. The registry lives in 8 or so binary files that are not difficult to find at all.

There are configuration issues with Linux in some software, but the difference between Windows and Linux is that with Windows, if the GUI ain't working, the system ain't working.

So? Have you honestly had the problem that the *GUI* wouldn't start in Windows? Ever? And it was a problem with the *OS* -- not hardware or bad drivers or a virus -- so that it was actually Microsoft's problem? And booting to VGA Mode or Safe Mode didn't let you recover? Windows is pretty failsafe as far as loading the GUI.

I've had that problem in Linux. Most modern desktop installations try to run X immediately. I've had default installs of Fedora, SuSE, Debian, and Ubuntu all fail to select a video driver that works on my HP 9000 laptop (which is about as mainstream as a system gets). I boot to a black screen. I can toggle over to a text TTY... which displays at, oh, about 6x8 characters. Yes, six by eight. Six characters across, eight lines. Not even enough to show me a logon prompt, since the system decides it doesn't understand display geometry. And depending on the distro, I may or may not be able to enter bootloader commands to get to single user mode. On that laptop, I use Windows XP because Linux fails to install properly for any distro released in the past year (and Debian Sarge). Windows XP, which is 6 years or so older than the hardware, does not have any drivers for any component in the entire system and yet still boots the first time to a usable interface. The Linux distros --- most of which I've tried are *newer* than the hardware -- do not even present a usable interface for a mainstream hardware configuration.

That's a pretty ridiculous failure.

Do not even get me started on my Optiplex 320.

Re:Not really that bad

[The Anarchist Avenge]

Which means these people have access to someone who has the knowledge to change the default values. They have access to a 19-year-old relative. Or they did, until I swore off supporting Microsoft software forever because of Vista. The point was that they were using more up to date operating systems with older files... but looking back at the thread, I realize that I totally messed up when I tried to explain that, so my apologies. What I was *trying* to say was that there are lots of files stored in legacy formats, and it's a really dumb idea to suddenly stop supporting them without any warning.

I find it more amazing people are using buggy 10 year old software. It was never that great to begin with with XP being a vast improvement! No argument with you there man.

Re:Not really that bad

[aussie_a]

What I was *trying* to say was that there are lots of files stored in legacy formats, and it's a really dumb idea to suddenly stop supporting them without any warning. Aaah okay, that's different. Although why they haven't tried to save and migrate these legacy formats to the more modern ones confuses me a bit. Resaving it surely wouldn't introduce any more formatting errors then simply opening it in a newer program.

Re:Not really that bad

[The Anarchist Avenge]

Seems like it would be even easier to just not have dropped support for those formats in the first place.
Not everyone is as smart as you or I, there are a lot of older adults who view computers as black boxes, and they're too set in their ways to want to change. What makes you think that someone who can barely install programs is going to think to save an old file in a newer format?

Re:Not really that bad

[aussie_a]

Well I use OOo which recommends you save it in its native format. If Office doesn't recommend you save it in its current format, then that's just stupid.

Re:Not really that bad

[The Anarchist Avenge]

You won't find any argument from me about how it *should* be, but the way Microsoft implemented it is crap.

Re:Not really that bad

[Peeteriz]

Well, the whole idea is that there are a lot of files that you want to keep and keep available, but you don't open them all that often - a novel that your dad wrote X years ago in word 6.0, that's been kept and copied over various computer upgrades, but has not been opened with word 95 and 97 and 2000. And when he wants to read it now with newest software, why should it suddenly break down?

Just Disabled, Not Removed

[tajmorton]

According to TFA, you still can open and save the files (Word 95 and older, and other ancient formats), you need to edit the registry to enable the formats.

Re:Just Disabled, Not Removed

[pembo13]

Because we know Microsoft's target market loves to run 'regedit'

Re:Just Disabled, Not Removed

[that this is not und]

Where I work, the IT staff, until recently, had people trained to open and install virus definition files that were sent as email attachments **. And I mean email attachments sent on a crummy Microsoft Exchange system.

It's unbelievable how naive IT people in small/medium companies can be.

It isn't surprising that there are probably companies that will now distribute some *.reg files in email for people to click on.

(** once people are trained that way, what happens when someone spoofs an email with malware attached?)

Re:Just Disabled, Not Removed

[ta bu shi da yu]

"This article contains information about how to modify the registry. Make sure that you back up the registry before you modify it. Make sure that you know how to restore the registry if a problem occurs."

"Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall the operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk."

Microsoft doesn't even like their own suggestion. Instead of a foolproof "disable this option", they make you edit the registry, which they warn againt doing.

Doesn't seem quite right, does it?

Re:Just Disabled, Not Removed

[Eternal Annoyance]

For companies with their own IT department and computer savvy home users it isn't a problem, but there are lots of users who do not understand how to edit the register and might even be afraid of it.

Re:Just Disabled, Not Removed

[aussie_a]

Besides which Microsoft's programs have always had trouble reading old formats. Just how readable were these old formats anyway?

Re:Just Disabled, Not Removed

[IceCreamGuy]

Download the update that they have to fix this, extract the files from the executable, and tell me how the fsck to do this. Seriously though, from a quick glance at the included files and documentation, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to apply this update other than by the manual registry edit. We just switched from Netware 4.0 (Don't make fun of me), so maybe I just don't know group policy well enough yet, but this update comes with the worst documentation I have seen yet from Microsoft. Luckily, we only have a single user that needs Lotus support, and OO.org should be able to work with any archives we have.

More bashing?

[CriminalNerd]

Hmm, usually, Microsoft stories are the foundation for countless counts of M$ bashing, but I wonder if this story will gain as much M$ bashing as the other stories. From what I could see, this is one of those circumstances that have no real "right" answer that'll make you feel good. At least there IS an official, documented workaround as opposed to the inbound TCP connection limit that came with XP SP2.

Re:More bashing?

[toddestan]

From what I could see, this is one of those circumstances that have no real "right" answer that'll make you feel good.

In order to come up with the right answer, I think the question needs to be asked - what is so dangerous in these old file formats? I don't doubt that there are exploits in the older file formats as I still remember the days of macro viruses, but they are old exploits. To ban Office 2003 from opening them is basically saying that Office has a bunch of ten year old unpatched security holes in it, and Microsoft doesn't want to fix them. You would think you would be able to open them up safely, somehow.

A chance for alternatives

[cygtoad]

The minute a user tries to open these retired formats and cannot is the minute they start looking for another solution to open their files. This will help the install base of a lot of alternatives, which may have some staying power once installed. Programs like Abiword, OO.org and Gnumeric are all waiting in the wings.

Re:A chance for alternatives

[G Fab]

Open Office opens all these files? I guess it does; I haven't used it for a long time.

IF so, this makes Open Office a lot more valuable to an MS Office user.

MS is doing this on purpose, to harm competitors. I guess I sound paranoid, but it's just the way MS fights. I am so inclined to favor a successful American business that has made a few nice innovations, but MS will fight with these judo moves that help them slightly and make life a bit more frustrating for their consumers. Dos and windows TOOK OFF because they worked with a zillion things. Anything you wanted there was a version made for an MS PC. Not any longer. Now media player, search functions, office applications are built in ways that incorporate too closely with the operating system.

MS is reaching too far. If they pulled back and made a great OS that was easy to make aps for, I think they'd do fine. The best solution is to break MS up into an OFfice suite company, an OS company, and a electronics company Zune, xbox, keyboards. I think all three would produce better products as a result.

Re:A chance for alternatives

[Tom9729]

I don't know why this got modded insightful.

If you even took a quick glance at TFA, you'd know that this only disables _saving_ in the old formats, one can still open them just fine.

But hey, this is Slashdot.

Re:A chance for alternatives

[samkass]

If you even took a quick glance at TFA, you'd know that this only disables _saving_ in the old formats, one can still open them just fine. ...and if you take a slightly longer glance, you may realize that you're wrong. In particular, it will block the older PowerPoint files from being opened.

Re:A chance for alternatives

[urcreepyneighbor]

The minute a user tries to open these retired formats Retired? Says who?

If someone is still using a format, it's alive. May not be popular, but that's another issue.

Re:A chance for alternatives

[Le T800]

And apparently you didn't even read the article at all. Anyway, what really confuse me is that part:

"After you install Office 2003 SP3, some Microsoft Office Excel 2003, Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2003, Microsoft Office Word 2003, and Corel Draw (.cdr) file formats are blocked."

We are proud to announce that Office 2003 is 100% secure now: it's not able to open or save anything now !

Just kidding, but hey, this is Microsoft.

Re:A chance for alternatives

[ta bu shi da yu]

At the risk of being scored -1 redundant, you are wrong.

"After you install Office 2003 SP3, some Microsoft Office Excel 2003, Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2003, Microsoft Office Word 2003, and Corel Draw (.cdr) file formats are blocked. By default, these file formats are blocked because they are less secure. They may pose a risk to you."

Re:A chance for alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of being scored -1 redundant, you are wrong. Well, yeah, if you're going to post the exact same quote as the reply above you posted 35 minutes earlier then you're definitely redundant. If the posts were a few minutes apart we could forgive that as 'mid-air collision' but you just deliberately or carelessly added noise.

Of course the grandparent actually meant that the 'open' block is only temporary and easily be disabled if you follow the KB you quoted, but hey.

Re:A chance for alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to run MS Office and Open Office on at least one machine, so if necessary, they can use OO to open the file and convert to a newer format.

Aren't there also small standalone programs out there that can convert files to different formats? Of course, there are for music and pic files, but I thought I'd seen one for office formats as well. If not, somebody write one!

Re:A chance for alternatives

[tokul]

Alternatives don't open Excel 2.1 files and some closed third party apps insist on generating reports in excel 2.1 format or some other proprietary format.

Re:A chance for alternatives

[ta bu shi da yu]

Noise huh? And you brought something useful to this discussion with that last comment? Oh the irony.

sucks to be you

[Anonymous Coward]

Things like this make me glad I don't use any of their software.

hmmm

[wizardforce]

I bet they'll do the same thing down the line if OOXML ever gets the ISO stamp of approval. let this be a warning to you, with MS your files are accessible for however long they decide they should be, with FOSS, they're accessible as long as anyone is alive capable of re-compiling the source.

Re:hmmm

[snl2587]

or, in this case, if one were to use any office program, such as OpenOffice, to read the old formats.

Re:hmmm

[statemachine]

with MS your files are accessible for however long they decide they should be, with FOSS, they're accessible as long as anyone is alive capable of re-compiling the source.

This is the point that people miss. All of the documents that were archived in the older formats will no longer be openable -- in this case, there is an arcane incantation as a workaround, but what if MSFT removes support entirely so that an authoritative document conversion is no longer possible? With open source, the method is obtainable. With closed source, it may be deleted when the company no longer supports it or closes its doors.

There are many cities/states/countries that rely on MSFT formats for document archival. Should a city keep spending money every 5-10 years to also update the formats on all of these records in case the necessary closed-source software ceases to exist or work on modern computers?

That's why

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

I only use software I coded myself, of hardware I've built myself, out of metals I've mined and smelted myself, etc...


Well, thank god we're all so worried about security! Now those "unsecure" files as so secure, not even the author can read them!

Re:That's why

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Software? I use pen and paper to do all the hex calculations and use a morse code key to write to the hard drive. But, I suppose if you are going to trust a machine where anyone can break into your home and change the code on it, then you deserve the lack of security that leads to.

Re:That's why

[hey!]

Using, no doubt, hands that are part of a body you've carefully bred, nurtured, and given birth to yourself.

Well

[Alexx K]

If you have documents that old, and they don't need to be edited in the future, you should probably convert them to PDF.

If they may need to be edited in the future, perhaps LaTeX or ODF would be good choices.

Re:Well

[flyingfsck]

"you should probably convert them to PDF." Hmm, go tell that to a lawyer with 50,000 old files of which half are older than 20 years, nevermind 10...

Re:Well

[mrchaotica]

Disk space is cheap, so I'd probably make PDFs and ODFs, and store them along with the original proprietary format in a zip file.

Re:Well

[ToBeContinued]

You are assuming that conversions between file formats happens 100% accurately.

Re:Well

[Steve001]

mrchaotica wrote:

Disk space is cheap, so I'd probably make PDFs and ODFs, and store them along with the original proprietary format in a zip file.

I would add that it should also be saved in HTML and plain text. This would ensure that the data is always accessible in some way. At worst, at least you would have access to the text with some basic formatting (HTML), or at least the actual text of the original document (plain text).

The disabling of support for older file formats is a major reason I've chosen to save my documents in RTF. Even after many years, I still have access to my documents via at least a dozen word processors.

Re:Well

[mrchaotica]

Nah, HTML and plain text can always be automatically generated from the ODF.

Re:Well

[Steve001]

I was thinking of HTML and plain text as extra backups, in case something happens to the ODF file. Since the ODF uses compression as part of the format there is a small chance that it could get corrupted, leaving you with nothing but the PDF file and the original proprietary-format file. Having two extra plain-text-format-file backups just in case of a disaster is a good thing, especially in the case of files created more than a decade ago.

Revenge

[The Clockwork Troll]

I am the maintainer of Visicalc. This means war.

Think Visicalc 26 service pack 3 is going to import Multiplan files?

Think again, bitches.

Re:Revenge

[locokamil]

Wow. Just wow.

I had to look up both Visicalc and Multiplan... apparently both were released before I was born.

Re:Revenge

[Jim Hall]

And you have now made me feel very, very old. Gee, thanks kid.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

Re:Revenge

[Bozdune]

Turns out a lot happened before you were born, my friend. For example, Corbato's Compatible Time Sharing System, built at MIT in 1961, solved the problem of "spinning processes" locking up the machine, which Microsoft Windows still hasn't solved to this day, judging by Vista's behavior on my new laptop. That problem was also solved by OS/MFT, also designed and built in the 1960's (see "The Mythical Man Month" by Fred Brooks). It was also solved by every major commercial operating system ever released. It is an obvious problem, with a very easy solution (drop the dispatch priority of the offending process below non-offending processes, but give it a bit of CPU from time to time, or all of the CPU if nobody else needs any. Duh.)

Re:Revenge

[locokamil]

If it's any consolation, it was released only three months before I was born.

Re:Revenge

[lysse]

Well, at least the world is now safe from the arbitrary execution of 6502 machine code.

Easy fix

[DaveAtFraud]

An easy work-around is to just install Open Office and then open the obsolete files using the appropriate Open Office program (Writer for Word documents, Calc for Excel spreadsheets, etc.). The user can then do a "save as" and select a newer Microsoft file format. Voila. Problem solved.

Microsoft probably won't like this work-around since a certain percentage of users may realize that they don't need to pay Microsoft for programs that don't do what they want and they can get a suite of programs that does what they want for free. Realizing this, Microsoft may decide to come up with a better internal solution but don't count on it.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Easy fix

[Alexx K]

That's a great idea, except OpenOffice has trouble opening/saving Microsoft's binary file formats.

Re:Easy fix

[DaveAtFraud]

I haven't had too much trouble. I've been running Linux and Open Office exclusively for several years and, at worst, I see some minor formatting issues when I open a file created with "the real thing" Microsoft product. Likewise, I sometimes see similar minor formatting issues when I save a file from OO in a Microsoft file format.

It wouldn't surprise me if some more complicated documents or say an Excel spreadsheet with macros had problems but OO has gotten pretty good at opening and saving Microsoft file formats. This is especially true for older file formats. The longer the file format is in use, the longer OO developers have had to debug their reverse engineering of the format.

Also, if someone hasn't opened a file for "a while" chances are they just need to see it; not update it (e.g., What was the actual sales forecast for Q3 2002? What price was quoted back when? That sort of thing). At worst there would be other options like cut and paste, save as text, save as comma delimited, etc. I'd hate to see a bunch of people having to make registry changes.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Easy fix

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually OpenOffice did a better job on old MS Word documents than MS Word did. At my old univ the physics dept kept OpenOffice around for just that purpose.

Re:Easy fix

[that this is not und]

You probably haven't tried to open a Word document that has a PowerPoint slide pasted into it where the PowerPoint slide has a table from Excel pasted into it.

That's the kind of big swirly mess that Middle Management was created to insure exists within many organization.

Re:Easy fix

[uglyduckling]

Yeah, but people who use/create that kind of file deserve what they get. It most likely won't open correctly except on the exact version of MS Office (including Service Packs) that it was created on (i.e. other versions of MS Office will struggle just as much as OO.org) and it probably won't print correctly on some printers or convert to PDF cleanly either.

Re:Easy fix

[jd]

Well, Open Office, any Open Office derivative (and there do seem to be a few), a variety of other office products, etc. Enforced obsolescence is nothing new, almost by definition. It is more of a problem when Microsoft pulls such a stunt, as opposed to say graphics manipulation packages that drop GIF support, simply because Microsoft is bigger. Oh, and yes, I know why GIF support was pulled - damn software patents - but the principle is the same: abolition of an old, largely redundant format so as to force users to adopt the format of the developer's choice, be that a benign or malevolent choice. In the end, it is the Will of the Maintainers that rules supreme, a techno-theocracy whether the deity is a freeing or enslaving one.

Of course, it is impossible for one program to support all formats. You end up with an exponential growth in the number of translation mechanisms needed, if you do that. Ideally, you'd have everything translated to/from a universal common meta-format, which is the premise of the next-generation file formats. Of course, such formats are still sufficiently flat that they cannot be truly universal. I'd hate to use any such meta-formats to represent structured data stored in an extension for NetCDF 4 over HDF 5 over ROMIO, the parallel I/O library. But then if meta-formats were any good at being universal, why would anyone want to have such a horribly complex layer-over-layer-over-layer mishmash in order to store/retrieve data? Such formats might be good for processing, because that's what they're good at, but a universal meta-format would be superior for storage as it would interact with more software, right?

Wrong. Specialist formats really are needed for some things, making universal translation unlikely to happen any time soon, in turn making some formats, well, doomed to be dropped. Although there are better ways for this to happen.

Re:Easy fix

[ta bu shi da yu]

You could log a bug...

Re:Easy fix

[ta bu shi da yu]

The whole "they deserve what they get" thing you espouse sounds suspiciously like what Microsoft has done...

Re:Easy fix

[uglyduckling]

Well... OK, my point (which I didn't put across very well) is that those sort of documents won't work properly anywhere except on the exact revision of the software they were written on. Microsoft has dumped it's customers on this one, but Openoffice.org won't do any worse a job than Office 2007 on a lot of these old documents. I'm actually quite glad MS has done this, because it proves the point about open formats. MS will call their formats 'open' even though the specification isn't specific enough to actually implement independently, because at the moment some of their big customers want hear that it's 'open'. As soon as Microsoft is finished with .docx they will drop it for the next money-maker.

Re:Easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

AMEN!!.
    Took 5 guys trying to go through those stupid steps for about 30 mins before I overheard them and quipped "Try Open Office".
Dead Silence...
5 mins later...
"Thanks, that did it frackin' Windows/whispered"

Re:Easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm concerned that the workaround that MS will be pushing is to install MS Office 2007 and convert archived documents to OOXML.

TFA was about SP3 for Office 2003. Does anyone know whether Office 2007 is also limited?

Re:Easy fix

[mysticgoat]

In my experience, OOo does a good job of reading MS formats in the general case. When it fails, there seem to be only two causes:

1. The original document was absurdly complex. Yesterday's "power users" were encouraged to use features of MS Word and Excel that belong to desk top publishing. They were also encouraged to devise macros without any training in programming practices. Through the experiences gained in dealing with these older documents, institutions have learned what should NOT be done in a word processor or spreadsheet, but if an old document looks okay superficially, no one is going to check it for flaws.
2. The underlying logic of the original document was broken. In MS Word, there are half a dozen different ways to achieve a similar appearance; eg, half a dozen ways to indent a block of text or create an ordered list. Many older documents will jump between these different ways, and get away with it because they just happen to generate a similar appearance in that version of the software.

As a general rule, if OOo fails to render an MS document correctly, there are subsurface flaws in that document that need to be corrected. If I were teaching an MS Office Applications course again, I would instill in students the habit of running their final drafts through OOo as part of their final check. Any well written document should have an acceptable appearance in OOo as well as in Office. If it doesn't, then the hidden syntax is wrong for the intended semantics, and that needs to be corrected.

Re:Easy fix

[Steve001]

mysticgoat wrote:

In my experience, OOo does a good job of reading MS formats in the general case. When it fails, there seem to be only two causes:

1. The original document was absurdly complex. Yesterday's "power users" were encouraged to use features of MS Word and Excel that belong to desk top publishing. They were also encouraged to devise macros without any training in programming practices. Through the experiences gained in dealing with these older documents, institutions have learned what should NOT be done in a word processor or spreadsheet, but if an old document looks okay superficially, no one is going to check it for flaws.

2. The underlying logic of the original document was broken. In MS Word, there are half a dozen different ways to achieve a similar appearance; eg, half a dozen ways to indent a block of text or create an ordered list. Many older documents will jump between these different ways, and get away with it because they just happen to generate a similar appearance in that version of the software.

As a general rule, if OOo fails to render an MS document correctly, there are subsurface flaws in that document that need to be corrected. If I were teaching an MS Office Applications course again, I would instill in students the habit of running their final drafts through OOo as part of their final check. Any well written document should have an acceptable appearance in OOo as well as in Office. If it doesn't, then the hidden syntax is wrong for the intended semantics, and that needs to be corrected.

Here is a link to an article from 2001 on LinuxPlanet that I read which concerns OpenOffice's filters for MS Word documents which relates to the above issues: http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3857/1/.

Conflicting Strategies?

[TaoPhoenix]

Wasn't "bakward compatibility" the whole crusade they were on last year? "We must preserve support for old formats, which is why we won't make IE standards compliant, and our spec has to back-support IndentsLikeWord95" and the rest?

Their sneaky brand of evil is saying two conflicting things and making us believe they work together.

Re: Conflicting Strategies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Preserving backwards compatibility, and nudging people to use newer formats, are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Conflicting Strategies?

[that this is not und]

I doubt that it's Microsoft being 'sneaky' in this instance. They're just being your basic big incompetent Monolith. Sure, there's a wild contradiction in their 'support for old formats' argument being used both ways, and it's deplorable.

I just wouldn't give Microsoft credit for being competent enough to 'plot' something like this out. There are ugly mean operators within the company who would pull shit like that in a heartbeat if they could. Thankfully Microsoft isn't that capable of an outfit.

Re: Conflicting Strategies?

[G Fab]

I don't know about that.

It would have been much easier to just add in a little "This is a low security file format, are you sure it is safe?" window instead of turning off teh entire functionality.

That's huge. I might use an old computer with old file formats, but MS won't let my work transfer to my new computer now if I update. That's freaking unacceptable. Office is supposed to aid my productivity, not look extremely pretty and make life miserable. There's a reason I uninstalled office 2007 and went back to 2003. I need to be able to work on several different systems. I need commonality to be effective.

Same reason I didn't buy that BMW I test drove a year ago. It had an awesome idrive thing, but it's too unlike other cars, and I'm getting older and don't want to relearn all this BS. I like buttons (the dealer went on about how the idrive took 200 buttons and reduced it to one button). The best way isn't always strictly the best way. Gotta have some damn sense. BMWs are ugly now anyway.

Office beat Word Perfect and others because it simply was the best product out there. MS makes the very best, and when they dominate, they don't anymore. They fight so hard when they need to, but when they don't they actually take steps that make their products less useful.

Like you say, a lot of that is monolithic corporate confusion. But this isn't. MS just made me need to either upgrade my old shit or avoid this update. Some people, I guarantee you, will buy new software thanks to this inconvenience and MS's subtle attack on their security (mildly stated: if you open attachments from strangers, you require a different level of security than I).

MS just made probably 1 million dollars. They let me turn off my firewall, that's an option. They let me delete boot.ini, that's an option too. They do not let me use the compatibility with old software they already programmed in to my office suite. Not an option. For security. I call shenanigans.

Re: Conflicting Strategies?

[coolGuyZak]

Preach on, brother! If I voice an opinion, I'd better be ready to stick to my guns for eternity!

Re: Conflicting Strategies?

[stewbacca]

If I voice an opinion, I'd better be ready to stick to my guns for eternity!

Well at least I know Hilary Clinton is not "coolGuyZak" on slashdot!

Re: Conflicting Strategies?

[humpy101]

Their sneaky brand of evil is saying two conflicting things and making us believe they work together
That is called doublethink

this may not be such a bad thing

[macurmudgeon]

I wonder if this is the start of Microsoft finally unburdening themselves from all that awful legacy code that's been such an albatross and has contributed to such bloated apps and OS?

Re:this may not be such a bad thing

[Alexx K]

I don't think so. Unlike Apple, Microsoft has too much of a stronghold in the business sector to remove backward compatibility. That's an example of what happens when you have a monopoly, although there will come a point in time when MS will be forced to say, 'Fuck this!" or their software will be crushed under its own weight.

Re:this may not be such a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they'll find a new source of bloat, how else will they convince people that it is absolutely neccessary to upgrade? take a look at MS's OS releases: each release was more "tolerable" than the one before [excepting Vista and ME] each had a number of flaws that were at least made more tolerable to the end user with each release. if they start fixing everything, what then will be the reason for people to upgrade when their current OS is good enough for them? [think XP vs Vista] make no mistake, the only reason MS can get people to consider an upgrade worth it is if they keep some bloat which is made a little tiny bit more tolerable with the next version, well that and the fact that they're in bed with the hardware companies but who's counting...

Re:this may not be such a bad thing

[Macthorpe]

Someone hasn't heard about MinWin.

Re:this may not be such a bad thing

[atraintocry]

Nah. Consider that they wrote the underpinnings of Active Directory over 15 years ago. Legacy code is like crack to Microsoft.

comfortable making registry edits?

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

when asking many of them to simply save as rtf is way more than they can handle without hand-holding, even the second or third time around?

I smell the smell of a new "service" in the works -- convert your old documents to the new formats "safely".

Is this actually a new thing?

[jesterzog]

Is this definitely just coming with SP3, or has it been around for longer? I hit this issue, or a very similar one, in our organisation several months ago. A user had some old Word 2.0 documents stored on a network drive (from the mid 1990's, before we enforced the use of a DMS), and they wouldn't open in Word 2003. The error dialog that Word displayed only mentioned the registry policy settings (without specifically saying the version was old), and I eventually found a knowledge base article that described the registry hack.

Re:Is this actually a new thing?

[that this is not und]

I think they 'killed' support for Word 2.0 documents a long time ago. You're probably in better shape reading Word for DOS 4.0 documents than Word 2.0 documents. This isn't something new that Microsoft is doing for the first time.

Re:Is this actually a new thing?

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

Is this definitely just coming with SP3, or has it been around for longer?

Yes, and yes. SP3 was released in September.
"News" for nerds, indeed.

Re:Is this actually a new thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>DMS

The Durham Mooting Society? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dms]

Just a thought.

Re:Is this actually a new thing?

[jesterzog]

Thanks, that would explain it. I guess Slashdot is just very late (as often happens).

long careers exclude using proprietary formats

[spasm]

Funnily enough, the thing that finally, permanently, won me over to open document formats (I first used things like openoffice simply because they were free) was discovering I couldn't open my dissertation (written in word 5.1a for mac) on a standard install of office for windows. Yes, I know there's converters, and yes, I know current versions of word for mac can still open 5.1a documents, but I didn't have a mac at the time, and laboriously 'converting' the large numbers of transcripts, notes, papers, and all the other ephemera of writing a dissertation was a huge, timewasting PITA..

After that, the penny dropped. Using open document formats wasn't simply a way to save money, it was an actual necessity for anyone planning to have a career lasting more than 5 years where writing is a core part of your work.

Re:long careers exclude using proprietary formats

[rabtech]

That isn't good enough either; What guarantee do you have that some new version of Office or OpenOffice won't change something in the way it renders documents, calculates formulas, etc that results in an incompatibility or rendering something incorrectly? Do you really think OpenOffice is going to handle your documents exactly the same way in 10 years after however-many people have touched the code? What about 20 years? 30 years? I didn't think so. The problem gets infinitely worse when you are talking about Macros... if there are object model changes (or just subtle changes in existing behavior) across versions that fancy document that does all those fancy things may be completely broken... or worse, it may just be wrong in some subtle ways.

The only way to be more certain you can reproduce the work exactly as intended is to render it into a format that has its rendering more tightly specified: PDF. Even that suffers from some of the same issues.

The only true way is to use Virtual Machines to run older software on older Operating Systems so you can edit and/or render (print, convert to PDF, etc) older documents. This also applies to media, especially media that has DRM (though I avoid DRM like the plague if at all possible). Virtual Machines and emulation will continue to be ported or re-created on newer platforms; it is unlikely that the ability to virtually run or emulate x86 code won't be available in 100 years. The critical mass is high enough and the problem well-understood enough that any future computing platforms are highly likely to support such a thing.

At least then you only have to worry about keeping your VM software up to date and/or translating the VM's virtual hard disk formats, rather than keeping after tons of individual software versions and/or conversion tools.

Re:long careers exclude using proprietary formats

[spasm]

I agree that it's possible that OO will change the way it'll render documents (I *personally* don't care about formulas and macros - I'm a sociologist, and 99% of my output is text, but you're definitely making a good point), however, the two advantages of an open document format are a) there's more likely to be more than one software package out there that reads and writes it (which we're seeing already with OO's ODT format), making it more likely there'll be something around which opens it 'appropriately' in 10 or 20 years; and secondly (and far far more importantly for my original problem with word format documents), I can always extract the *content* of an open format document (regardless of whether its ODF, PDF, or some other published format). Exact layout is nice, but if all I want is the content of that transcript of an interview I did with someone 10 years ago, I'm probably going to reformat it anyway. With those word 5.1a documents I mentioned in the original post, I had binary garbage and occasional out-of-order partial strings, and that was it. Unzip an ODT file and there's a nice handy 'content.xml' file inside.

That said, my personal slow slide into the world of open source and open document formats led me eventually to latex, which I don't think is going to become unusable in the future. Not within the 20-30 years of the average academic career anyway. Although latex is not exactly the solution to most people's writing and collaborating needs.. : )

For what it's worth, I think your comments on the current and future role of VMs for accessing older document formats should be modded insightful. I do wonder however what it's going to be like trying to get some circa 2007 'dial home for activation' operating system to play nice in a VM in 20 years time so you can recover the documents you wrote in some proprietary document format..

Re:long careers exclude using proprietary formats

[lxrocks]

It's actually quite strange why people still even use Microsoft Office when OpenOffice is for free. In the past, I have installed OpenOffice/Thunderbird/Firefox for a number of family members on their new PC/Laptops and told them it was the 'New Office' ;-) They have been very happy, not a single complaint. Some of theme can't tell the difference!!

Re:long careers exclude using proprietary formats

[Anonymous Coward]

10 or so years ago, I read in a how to use computers book "If you can't afford to lose a file, print it"
I have small files I created with word 6 on windows 3.1. I guess I will run into this problem.

This is why you need to support ODF instead

[velen]

Any government organization or large corporate that has a necessity to retain records has to convert their archives to a newer version. Who is paying for the conversion? Also, Office 95 is 13 years old. If someone upgraded to Office 95 by 97 (for service pack / stability etc) it is 10 years old. Given the investment in the software, if you assume someone used it and upgraded directly to office 2003, then the documents that are affected are less than 5 years old...

Groping through annals

[Anonymous Coward]

Just be careful with your groping. I once had a friend who went rummaging through others' dusty annals -- all he found were some leftover carets next to a few shitty colons and bloody periods.

How can a file format be more or less secure???

[Helldesk Hound]

> They did this because the old formats are 'less secure', which
> actually makes some sense, but only if you got the files from
> some untrustworthy source.

How can a *file format* be more or less secure?

Surely it is the application that is being used to parse said file that does it in a secure or insecure manner. A file format is just a means to store data in an orderly manner.

That said, why doesn't M$ adopt the Open Document format, given that it is the ISO standard?
(rhetorical question - already know the answer - "vendor lock-in" and screw the competitors again)

Re:How can a file format be more or less secure???

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one way I can think of that file formats can, in a sense, be less secure; namely macro, scripting and execution abilities.

If the older versions had more dangerous features enabled in the scripting (I don't know whether this is the case) or if they had, for example, allowed the files to contain arbitrary executable code that would be executed while rendering the document, then fully compatibly supporting the file format would require either an internal sandbox environment or opening up potential security holes...

Has scripting become less dangerous in newer Office versions? I last used Word and Excel about 15 years ago so I honestly don't know.

Sure there is a right answer --

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Bill Gates has how many billions of dollars?

(Can he fire the Ballmer?)

Gates could afford to build a special fork of one of the Linux or BSD distros. (Linux would require less work, but he may find the BSD licensing more palatable, as we know.) He could afford to develop several sandboxed WINE environments capable of emulating the clot of software relevant to each OS release from 3 to whatever level of support he is dropping. He could afford to put into the packages for this special fork open source converters that would convert old documents to whatever is current at Microsoft (since he is not likely to be willing to convert to the more logical option). And, as a bonus, he could even provide software to check the sandbox for damage and report and repair it. (Actually, the repairing would not really just a bonus.)

Why doesn't he do it?

Dang, and why doesn't Apple make MOL an official product? Or even MOM?

Re:Sure there is a right answer --

[Alexx K]

Why doesn't he do it?

This is Microsoft we're talking about here. Richard Stallman would buy Office 2007 before MS did something like that. Even independently, Bill Gates would not do something like that. It would cause too much damage to Microsoft's public image.

Re:Sure there is a right answer --

[Entropius]

damage to Microsoft's public image.

That's like worrying about tracking mud into a pig sty.

Re:Sure there is a right answer --

[sqrt(2)]

Do you really think that the public, that average people buying computers, that business and government agencies care who actually wrote the kernel? Hell, do you think they could even grasp the concept of what a kernel is? Now granted there would be a collective geek orgasm "gotcha!" moment on sites like slashdot et al but what we do here does not reach normal people, nor could most people even understand it if you attempted to explain the gravity and ramifications of such an event were it to happen. This would not be a PR problem for Microsoft. It has more to do with their own hubris than anything.

If they could get old hardware to work, if all the software still ran, if the computer still downloaded porn like always, I think the masses aren't going to notice they're now technically running a variant of Unix.

File format is less secure?

[filbranden]

They did this because the old formats are 'less secure', which actually makes some sense,

This doesn't make sense to me. A file format doesn't have buffer overflow vulnerabilities, the program that opens it has them. A file format cannot execute a virus or a trojan, the program that opens it is the one that does it. I cannot believe that a file format can have inherent vulnerabilities that cannot be circumvented by the program that reads the file.

On the other hand, considering the ODF vs. OOXML format wars, it seems to me that Microsoft's objective with this is actually to press for the standardization of OOXML. How exactly I don't understand, since the whole point of standard document formats is to avoid this same problem that they've just created.

Re:File format is less secure?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they remove the older formats from the spec, they can remove the words that pop up in discussions: 'autospacelikeword6' and say they are working with the community without actually doing anything.

Re:File format is less secure?

[munch117]

They did this because the old formats are 'less secure', which actually makes some sense,

This doesn't make sense to me. A file format doesn't have buffer overflow vulnerabilities, the program that opens it has them.

Exactly. MS disabled some old security-bug-prone code. They could write some new code to replace it, but chances are they would introduce new bugs in the process.

Realistically, to keep any program secure, you need to keep it small, or at least restrain its growth.

Re:File format is less secure?

[openfrog]

(...) it seems to me that Microsoft's objective with this is actually to press for the standardization of OOXML. How exactly I don't understand, since the whole point of standard document formats is to avoid this same problem that they've just created.

Insightful. The OOXML saga might have prompted Microsoft to update their strategy and their contract (implied, moral and eventually legal) with the user.

Could it be that they think of using the uproar caused by this breach of their moral obligations to claim that their product is wanted? To remind everyone of their ubiquitousness? As a kind of blackmail to large (public) institutional users?

If they succeed in withdrawing support for old formats, they succeed in walking away from being accountable. If they don't and end up having to reinstate support, they can claim that they are working hard for "interoperability" (Imagining Ballmer utter this word gives me goosebumps somehow). Furthermore, in the process of discussing a reinstatement of support with large institutions, they can negotiate some reciprocal support for their OOXML """standard""".

Just thinking aloud...

Re:File format is less secure?

[m50d]

I cannot believe that a file format can have inherent vulnerabilities that cannot be circumvented by the program that reads the file.

Of course it can, quite trivially. Have it include the ability to make arbitrary calls to the outside environment in some turing-complete language - e.g. for OLE. If these are actually used, there is no way to programmaticly determine in general whether a given call is good or bad, and any attempt you make will probably introduce more security vulnerabilities than there were in the first place.

This is exactly why proprietary formats are bad

[Skapare]

This is exactly why proprietary formats are bad, at least for documents that need to be kept for a long time for some reason, such as archival or historical documents. Even if open source office applications do similar things and depricate support for old formats, the older application versions might at least be available. Or third party developers could more easily create conversion programs. While open source programs do also exist to read these old proprietary documents today, we don't know if future proprietary document formats will be able to be supported. The open formats will be supportable.

Re:This is exactly why proprietary formats are bad

[IntlHarvester]

A legacy file format importer that was written back in 1995 is likely going to be insecure whether its closed or open source.

I could easily see an OSS project making the same decision and choosing to drop old, unmaintained code modules because of security reasons. Its a pretty simple decision, if the feature benefits very few people but could affect anyone if there's a coding flaw, hide it/turn it off/whatever.

Re:This is exactly why proprietary formats are bad

[LiquidFire_HK]

A legacy file format importer that was written back in 1995 is likely going to be insecure whether its closed or open source. True, but if it's of a documented, open format you can write a new importer. If there's an open source implementation you don't even have to start from scratch, just fix the existing one.

autoSpaceLikeWord95?

[filbranden]

Does that mean they'll drop the autoSpaceLikeWord95 tag from OOXML spec?

Great solution, except for Excel and Access

[DamnStupidElf]

Not to mention applications like Visio or Publisher whose entire point is being able to modify and reuse the things created with them.

The *real* problem with every Microsoft file format is that it's a cheap wrapper around the data structures used internally by the application that created it. No abstraction, no official standard, and no concept of future or backward compatibility.

Who ARE these people?

[hyades1]

I've got quite a lot of stuff in old Word and CorelDraw formats. If it hadn't been for this post, I'd no doubt have found myself in exactly the situation described: utterly screwed months or years after I installed the Service Pack and with no idea what the problem was.

I can't believe Microsoft would want to piss people off on purpose, especially given the difficulty they've been having with Vista. On the other hand, I can't see how anybody running a business could be so utterly, arrogantly stupid. All it would take to treat the user properly is one simple sentence informing them about the consequences of installing SP3.

One thing's sure: I'll remember the Open Office workaround described earlier if I ever run into a similar problem.

Re:Who ARE these people?

[debest]

I've got quite a lot of stuff in old Word and CorelDraw formats. If it hadn't been for this post, I'd no doubt have found myself in exactly the situation described: utterly screwed months or years after I installed the Service Pack and with no idea what the problem was.

I can't believe Microsoft would want to piss people off on purpose, especially given the difficulty they've been having with Vista. On the other hand, I can't see how anybody running a business could be so utterly, arrogantly stupid. All it would take to treat the user properly is one simple sentence informing them about the consequences of installing SP3.

One thing's sure: I'll remember the Open Office workaround described earlier if I ever run into a similar problem.

And yet you give no mention about you doing anything about this situation yourself. What about now going forward? Are you going to be stuck again in 5 years, unable to open documents you created in 2003? More to the point about what you can do now, what about in 10 years, when you're unable to open the documents you will create in 2008? This is likely to be exactly what will happen unless you get off proprietary file formats now!

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but it sounds like you will continue using MS Office and will count on OpenOffice to be your "safety net". If not, I apologize. But I know that a lot of people will do precisely nothing differently from this time forward, even if they do get dinged by this SP3 problem. I have difficulty generating sympathy now, and I will have none at all for anybody in the future who will have this happen to them again.

Re:Who ARE these people?

[hyades1]

A few points to explain my situation in a bit more detail.

The concept of using OpenOffice as a tool that might help me get around the next MS Office problem is what I will remember. My old format files will be dumped to alternate formats within the next couple of weeks.

My primary objection is that the Microsoft attitude ensures there will be a "next time". It won't be the same problem; it will be another problem generated by their arrogance and indifference.

I am NOT a computer person. I use it as a tool to accomplish my ends. I use Windows and associated software because it was the only game in town at the company I worked for, and I did a lot of work at home. If you recall, one of Microsoft's major selling points was that EVERYTHING would be backwards-compatible. Until recently they were pretty good about keeping that promise. My next OS, when XP Pro finally croaks, will be Linux. Until then, I don't think it's unfair to expect that older versions of the same program I paid good money for will remain readable. I wonder how many people have important documents in non-volatile storage in safety deposit boxes and such? Should they be expected to whip these things out and update them every couple of years?

Perhaps you'll manage to reserve just a little sympathy for people with a different mindset, whose priorities are not those of a software developer. Let me put it this way: I've got three books in my library over 200 years old. They work just fine.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

"They did this because the old formats are 'less secure'" should have read "They did this because Microsoft is too lazy to fix its parsers for the old formats which thus are 'less secure'"

Re:Mod parent up

[doktor-hladnjak]

Is it laziness or is it just choosing to expend development effort in the areas that customers are more likely to care about? Every hour spent fixing some crufty old parsing code for 20 year old Word documents is an hour that can't be spent improving security in ways that regularly affect users or adding new features that will improve their productivity.

MS Word == zero archive value

[flyingfsck]

This is a serious problem actually. Corel WordPerfect has much better archive value than MS Word, which is one reason why many lawyers still prefer WordPerfect.

Re:MS Word == zero archive value

[timminator]

Compared to what?
http://kidscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/rosetta-namlhots.jpg

ASCII Ate EBCDIC

[timminator]

ASCII ate EBCDIC.
VHS ate Betamax.
Microsoft Word ate WordPerfect.
Conspiracies all?!
Blame Reynolds Metals shareholders -- they were the one pushing for the bull market of aluminum foil hats.

Do I understand correctly?

[UnknowingFool]

So what MS is saying is that an application made just over 4 years ago is so fundamentally insecure that files from over 10 years ago can pose an enormous threat to it. By the way, the advisory includes not only MS formats but also Lotus and Quattro files. Also the the application cannot be made any safer so the file formats must be disabled unless the user manually restores the functionality. Am I the only one that is skeptical of this explanation?

Re:Do I understand correctly?

[ScrewMaster]

In other words, their lips moved.

Wonderful New Oppurtunity

[jkgamer]

I see this as a new oppurtunity to market a 3rd party application that will read those older formats and convert them to the newer ones. Then M$ can see how popular the software is, buy the company up, and include it as a new feature for Office 2010!!!

Re:Wonderful New Oppurtunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Try MacLinkPlus Deluxe. You'll need Mac OS X to run it.

silver lining...

[xubu_caapn]

this will push tons of users onto openoffice, either as a replacement or as a supplement to office.

You're a youngster

[IvyKing]

I've got a legitimate datestamp on one file on my computer that is at least as old as you are and some files (fortunately ASCII text) that were written before you were born (dates were reset when migrating from my first machine to my second).

People who wrote stuff in TeX before you were born will have an easier time of reading and editing their documents than someone with an early version of Word for Windows.

Mind-bogglingly complex?

[Tim C]

I guess the submitter missed the link to an exe you can use to do it for you. I mean, it is buried in the KB article as "Method 1" after all...

Re:Mind-bogglingly complex?

[deniable]

That EXE contains ADM files / Group Policy templates. It's perfect if you're running an AD domain but is not much use for individual users. Those people can get whoever does their support now to use method 2.

'Mind bogglingly complex' indicates the submitter can't be trusted with a box of crayons.

Re:Mind-bogglingly complex?

[coolbox]

Whilst I disagree with the decision MS has made, it's relatively simple to re-enable the functionality. One can download the O2k3 sp3 ADM as the parent indicated. With the ADM one can enable this via Active Directory group policies - simple to roll it out org wide. Assuming one has an AD in place, of course. a Bit of a storm in a teacup really...

Re:Mind-bogglingly complex?

[BasilBrush]

What you are all doing is making the mistake of assuming that the user is in a large organisation with an IT support dept that will do the work for them. Well a lot of people that use Office are not in that situation. The procedure may not be mind bogglingly complex for an IT support person, but the average person would be scared and confused from the get go with the instruction to backup the registry, never mind run ORKSP3AT.exe

And for what? The excuse that these are insecure formats is a lie. It's just data. If Office 2003 is vulnerable to exploiting old file formats, that's Office 2003 code that is insecure.

The best lesson that users can learn from this is don't ever upgrade Office.

Re:Mind-bogglingly complex?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Actually, in a way it is. It's mind-boggling that someone would think that one should have to go to the KB to "fix" a "problem" that probably doesn't exist.

Re:Mind-bogglingly complex?

[time961]

Actually, Method 1 is not a simple executable that "can do it for you". Rather, it's a download that "includes updated Group Policy Administrative Template files, OPA files, and an updated Microsoft Excel workbook that lists the Administrative Template policy settings and OPA settings", and a set of instructions on using those nifty administrative tools and policy settings to fix the problem.

Leaving aside the more fundamental question of why a bleedin' word processor needs administrative policy mechanisms (I know, I know, it's important to ensure career longevity for enterprise IT staff), it's not at all clear that it's any easier for a desktop user to learn how to use those administrative mechanisms than it is for them to edit the registry. At least, if they're experienced Windows users, this probably won't be the first time that they've had to change the registry to fix some mysterious instance of MSBD.

Microsoft has been pretty good about supporting old formats forever. And they still do—the support is just disabled, not eliminated. Like 'em, or not, that support has been a good thing for users. Is the OpenOffice converter code as good as Office's? I don't know, but as OpenOffice is much newer than those bits of Office (I mean, Java is much newer than some of those converters), it's less likely to have been developed when knowledge of those old programs and formats was more widespread.

The security reason isn't preposterous, either: there has been malware distributed in the past as down-rev Office documents, and as other posters have observed, the converter code is likely difficult to analyze, test, or fix for a variety of good reasons (e.g., no living human understands what it's supposed to do).

The real problem is the implications of this sad implementation of a "security fix". Microsoft is making a serious effort to make their software more secure across the whole product like. Examples like this, however, suggest that the effort is guided by poorly-understood rules, rather than sound principles and good engineering judgment—and that makes it hard to have much confidence in the effort's long-term success.

Re:Mind-bogglingly complex?

[kaitsu]

Some minds are more easily boggled than others...

Re:Mind-bogglingly complex?

[paskie]

Besides, how is the registry poking mind-bogglingly complex? You are just asked to add a bunch of registry keys? I haven't had Windows installed on my computer for the last 7 years but I have always assumed they are to Windows users like text config files for Linux users? And for non-technical users, I'd guess that editing the registry on Windows is about as complex (or just slightly more) as editing config files on Linux. And if you hit some obstacle or want to do something non-standard with your Linux system, getting dirty with your dot or /etc files _is_ what it's gonna come down to. So what's the big fuss here?

Re:Mind-bogglingly complex?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I guess the submitter missed the link to an exe you can use to do it for you. I mean, it is buried in the KB article as "Method 1" after all...

You obviously didn't read method #1 at all. That is not a program to do it for you -- that is a dumb exe self-extractor (because M$ is still too stupid to figure out to use .zips) which contains -- *NOT* a program to do it for you, but an administrative template, which you could apply to a domain controller or management PC and then create a new GPO for this, and then of course you'll have the problem that that GPO is a problem on all other domain controllers and management PCs until they also get the special admin template.

All in all, it is a huge pain and a terrible method, and only works for one domain, and only for users in that one domain, so it isn't even an enterprise solution, just a broken mess halfway between enterprise solution and single-machine solution, and of no real use to either.

Vulnerability count -- Windows vs. Linux

[filbranden]

I hope they count these as security vulnerabilities on the next report of Microsoft vs. Linux vulnerability count. After all, Microsoft itself is claiming it's a security related problem.

And they were apparently "exploitable" for about 4 years, since they were "fixed" with SP3 in 2007 for a product from 2003.

Re:Vulnerability count -- Windows vs. Linux

[david_thornley]

No, it doesn't count as fixed, as there is a recommended way to unfix it, and reasons why people might have to do so. Let's just count this as at least one continuing major security vulnerability per file format disabled.

Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[Moraelin]

Umm, you do know it's XML, right? Now while admittedly I don't "hate" MS as such, I'm no great fan either and this story does make me a bit disgusted. But if you're telling me you're affraid you can't get your data out of XML down the road, and out of a documented XML format at that, no offense, but I hope you're not having anything to do with programming or management.

I mean, FFS, repeat after me: it's XML. You can write an XSLT to convert it to another XML format (or to HTML or plain text.) You can pipe it through FOP to PDF/RTF/SVG/whatever. You can even do it the hardcore way: parse it through Xerces/Crimson/whatever-XML-library and get your data via a C++ or Java program out of there. Or if you're old school, you can write your own script to get the text from between the XML tags. Etc.

The reason we bash closed formats is because reverse-engineering a format that's (A) _binary_ and (B) _undocumented_ is a pain in the rear. A format that's XML and documented for an ISO standard, is trivial to get your data out of. Maybe you won't get the font just right because, as some complaints about the documentation went, it's described as "works like the Word 97 option". But you _will_ get your data out of it.

Basically, much as bashing MS is popular, and sometimes even I'll join in the chorus, methinks more people should know when to stop. If you're complaining about proprietary XML, that's documented to boot, maybe you should have hit the brakes earlier.

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[wizardforce]

But if you're telling me you're affraid you can't get your data out of XML down the road, and out of a documented XML format at that, no offense, but I hope you're not having anything to do with programming or management.

sigh.. if there's an open format for it I save it to that format, this little problem MS has created doesn't affect me in the slightest. what bothers me about it is MS is playing parental figure again and the vast majority of people are bending over for them out of habit. sure they could use FOSS to access the data or even modify their registry so that they could open and convert the files but from what I've seen, it will be far more likely that they'll just write it off as a common failure of software that they've been lulled into accepting as normal. this isn't a technical problem as it is ignorance and laziness on both MS's end and anyone unfortunate enough to not know any better.

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, right, Documented standard.
Have you looked at the documentation for Microsoft's XML "standard"?
You really should. Before making another comment like that.

I think you will be very unpleasantly surprised I know I was.

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, I'll rest so much easier tonight knowing that an XSLT that translates binary_blobulescense_that_you_can_no_longer_read to binary_blobulescense_that_you_can_no_longer_read will solve all my document conversion problems. Thanks for that - no, really.

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[statemachine]

Umm, you do know it's XML, right?
Apparently, you don't know what XML is. You can encapsulate ANYTHING with XML. It's just a bunch of tags that have no meaning until you describe what the tags encapsulate. And then there are binary blobs, which don't mean jack because they don't get described as anything else besides a binary blob.

I did a little bit of Googling just so I don't put my foot in my mouth too firmly here.

It is a fact that binary blobs are allowed in OOXML as well as ODF. The MS/OOXML rabid fan site ooxmlhoaxes even stipulates this. No argument there.

BUT, in the article GNOME/OOXML podcast shows two sides closer than appears, these binary blobs that MSFT have are NOT specified in a publicly accessible document (if they ever were documented). While the thrust of the article was about software politics and the podcast itself, it did have a few nuggets for our conversation.

The discussion came about as a result of GNOME's support for the efforts of Jody Goldberg, the lead developer of the Gnumeric spreadsheet, to use the ECMA process to force Microsoft to reveal more about OOXML and, by extension, its previous binary formats.

According to Waugh, GNOME's involvement is limited entirely to support for Goldberg, "to ensure that Microsoft provide as much documentation as possible to make it easy for him to implement OOXML in Gnumeric specifically. And if he did not continue his participation, he would not be able to hold [Microsoft's] feet to the fire and make sure they came through on the various bits and pieces of documentation" needed for the OOXML standard. The advantage of supporting Goldberg's efforts, Waugh said, is that it helps free software support not only OOXML, but Microsoft's previous binary formats as well.

Now, if MSFT is allowed to just grandfather in undocumented binary blobs into OOXML for whatever reason, is OOXML truly an open format?

OOXMLhoaxes would have you believe that ODF has this same problem:

So why does no one ever mention that ODF can contain binary data within the XML ?

But, this is of course shenanigans. ODF is based on an open source package. Since the package is open source, we all know the code that would create the binary blob and can document it and recompile it. MSFT has not offered the code to authoritatively read their own binary blobs. And let's not talk about reverse-engineering being viable for use by large companies. This would open them up to patent lawsuits if MSFT chose to go that route.

From the same blarticle:

In the past the Office 2003 XML formats did indeed contains embedded binary date within the file. This of course due to the fact that this format consisted of a single XML file.

So, Office 2003 also has undocumented binary blobs? Well, so much for XML making it easy for one to decode previous Office formats.

Looks like I won't be chewing on my foot after all. Here's the search I did to find out about the OOXML undocumented binary blob problem in case you'd like a starting point.

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[natenovs]

how else do you want to be able to put an image into a document without binary blobs?

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[statemachine]

Images (which are very well documented) are not the only binary objects that MSFT includes in the document.

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[natenovs]

well yeh, you can embed video and music into powerpoint. what solution to you suggest to this problem? you can only embed FOSS multimedia into your documents?

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[statemachine]

Well, since you didn't read my other posts, who knows what you'll come up with next that's already been answered. The problem is with binary blobs undocumented by MSFT, not well known image formats that have never been a problem.

Please stop trolling and throwing out red herrings. Or do Arctic penguins really cause hair loss in theatrical attire?

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[natenovs]

that's a real mature response. when your argument falls apart you just resort to calling someone a troll. no wonder people don't take you guys seriously. i've read your posts, and your links and you sound like even more of a fanboy and shill than the OXMLhoaxes you tried to derail.

also you haven't answered my question at all. how do you suppose Microsoft (or any other format definer) should define an embedded piece of proprietary multimedia?

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[mvdwege]

What do you mean, his argument falls apart?

His argument basically boils down to: "MS uses undocumented binary data in OOXML". The fact that video and graphics are also encoded in binary in OOXML is irrelevant, because that was not what his argument was about.

Next time someone doesn't want to reply to red herrings, you might show some maturity in actually addressing the point.

Mart

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[natenovs]

what is the difference between "undocumented binary data" and proprietary video and graphics? both contain binary blobs that are undocumented. it's not a red herring argument, it's a perfectly valid one.

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[mvdwege]

The difference is that at least images and video are documented to be images and video. And since decoders for most of these are available (even if of questionable legality due to idiotic patents), they are documented enough to be used. A binary blob that's a represention of an internal MS data structure on the other hand must be reverse engineered from the bottom up, starting with even its purpose in the document.

Really, do you have to work at being this stupid?

Mart

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[natenovs]

do you have to work at being that much of a fucking prick. to hell with you assholes.

Re:Uh, you do know it's XML, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of proprietary != undocumented do you not understand, natenovs? Jeeeezusss...

Why is this mind-bogglingly[sic] complex?

[ISwearNotmyPorn]

What I'm gathering from the KB article is that a user needs to set one or more reg keys to reenable the older file formats.

27 Billion USELESS Gigabytes 2 b Archived by 2010

[tekrat]

So, combined with a previous story here on Slashdot, buinesses are going to be spending Gigaquads of Cash to archive their data, only to discover that by 2010, Microsoft will have wiped out their ability to OPEN any of their archived documents?

So, what are businesses archiving this data for? Can you imagine the SEC spectacle when some business gets picked for insider trading, they go to start an investigation and their copy of Vista with Office 2010 doesn't allow them to open old documents? What kind of bullshit is this?

Then again, I'm finding it difficult to open my old Macwrite documents (from 1992) on my current iMac because the old Macwrite format isn't supported... Then again, neither is the floppy disk it's written to, but that's a different issue that I've already solved. Still, it's annoying to be able to archive all this data, but then not have access to the applications that wrote this data. It would also be nice if I could read all my C-64 and Amiga diskettes in a current computer. Ironic that I have all my data, I just can't access it either due to hardware or software that just doesn't exist anymore.

Time for you for ODF

[aepervius]

In 25 years you will still able to use an open ISO standard or convert from one standard to another. Microsoft jsut proved to you they are unreliable for the goal you had (forward compatibility).

Re:Time for you for ODF

[bmsleight]

Bingo - I could not agree more. This reinforces why open document standard are required, another company should not decide when my documents are obsolete.

Re:Time for you for ODF

[Chief Camel Breeder]

"In 25 years you will still able to use an open ISO standard [...] "

Yes, you will; but not necessarily the one you're using today. Nor will you necessarily be able to convert the old documents with the then-current version of your tool of choice. If you want to archive, you've still got to archive the reading software.

Over 25 years (nearly half the current evolution of computers) all bets are off and being a standard guarantees nothing.

Re:Time for you for ODF

[Xiaran]

Yes but the legacy standard is clearly documented in the most unambiguous way the standards body and try to come up with. Even if the software is no longer widely used or exists it is much easier to go to a standards document and write new conversion software that recreate a reverse engineering solution on a format that no one left alive know the details of.

Re:Time for you for ODF

[LWATCDR]

"Over 25 years (nearly half the current evolution of computers) all bets are off and being a standard guarantees nothing."
Not really. Well documented file formats from more than 25 years ago are still readable. You can still get data out of ASCII and Comma delimited ASCII files. IFF graphics files are still readable on most paint programs as well.
A well documented file formats have a pretty good history as far as future support.
Where things really go south is when you get into media support. You may have no trouble with the file format but you may have no way to read that disk, tape, or deck of punch cards.

Re:Time for you for ODF

[Curunir_wolf]

I call BS. Please give one example involving ISO standards. Just 1. And Microsoft "embraced and extended" implementations don't count.

Re:Time for you for ODF

[Chief Camel Breeder]

"Please give one example involving ISO standards.

In the early 1990s, my development group was producing documents in SGML, which is ISO 8879:1986, using DEC software. SGML is a meta-language like XML, so to recover the documents fully one would need both an SGML parser (available, but not very common, excepting those specialized for HTML) and something that understood the particular set of elements and entities used by the DEC software. Open Office, my current tool of choice, certainly wouldn't read those documents even though they were conforming SGML. (Does OO read SGML at all?)

Sure, if you archive in ODF, where the element semantics are part of the standard, you're in a much stronger position. You probably will be able to read 2007-style ODF in 2032. But I maintain that it's not a certainty. If stuff is important enough to archive for 25 years, it's worth pickling an ODF reader with it.

Re:Time for you for ODF

[Richy_T]

And the hardware to run it on?

The point of an open standard is that the standard *is* the reader in a meta language that is easily portable to whatever is available. It's even theoretically possible that one day, software might be intelligent enough to read, parse and understand standards written in human languages and implement them. So whilst people are happily able to open and read 25 year old ODF files, other people will be digging around junk stores for on x86 computers and Word CDs (assuming they haven't all fallen to CD rot and that they can be activated once Microsoft decides to change that that version is obsolete and switches off their activation servers)

Rich

Re:Time for you for ODF

[msuarezalvarez]

You are making an absurd point. Of course we are all just talking about formats with a specified semantics.

What would you expect OpenOffice (or any other app!) to do with an SGML document whose particular set of elements and entities it does not know?

Re:Time for you for ODF

[Chief Camel Breeder]

"And the hardware to run it on?"

No, just the source code (or possibly Java bytecode, but maybe that won't last so well). If the data standard turns out unreadable, then plan B is that you can still compile the reader. Or, expanding on your point, maybe the archive should just include the definition of its format in some simpler document format (plain ASCII?). But plan A is definitely to pick a lasting data standard.

Of course, plan B requires an open-source reader. But even M$ formats have those now.

(Note to Slashdot attack dogs: I do not advocate using M$ .doc format, or OOXML; ODF is far better. None of my posts in this thread are an argument against using ODF in favour of M$ formats or software. I'm not a M$ shill so don't waste your bile.)

Re:Time for you for ODF

[Chief Camel Breeder]

You are making an absurd point. Of course we are all just talking about formats with a specified semantics.

No we're not all talking about formats with implied semantics. Look further back in the thread and you'll find one respondant mentioning CSV as an easily-read format. That is another example where the semantics - meaning of the columns - aren't inherent in the format itself.

What would you expect OpenOffice (or any other app!) to do with an SGML document whose particular set of elements and entities it does not know?

Nothing, of course! That's why, if I had to archive data in such a format for the long term, I'd expect to include a reader and/or a schema (i.e. DTD for the SGML in question). Yes, for ODF both reader and schema will probably available in the far future. But, over 25+ years, it's not certain. Could you guarantee it? Personally?

Re:Time for you for ODF

[msuarezalvarez]

What would you expect OpenOffice (or any other app!) to do with an SGML document whose particular set of elements and entities it does not know?

Nothing, of course! That's why, if I had to archive data in such a format for the long term, I'd expect to include a reader and/or a schema (i.e. DTD for the SGML in question). Yes, for ODF both reader and schema will probably available in the far future. But, over 25+ years, it's not certain. Could you guarantee it? Personally?

The schema is available available from ISO, if you like officially looking things, but you can get it from many other sources. For example, http://std.dkuug.dk/keld/iso26300-odf/ has the actual official ISO document. Just get a copy and save it with your files.

As for the reader: the fun thing is, you can write your own, because the schema is fully documented. Now, by ``write your own'' I do not mean necessarily that you yourself write it: you can pay someone to do it, you can ask nicely thatsomeone does it for free, and so on.

Timeline of this "feature"

[felipekk]

Microsoft:

1. Develops Office 2003 Service Pack 3
2. Tests Office 2003 Service Pack 3
3. Check for existing features that were broken
4. Releases the "loss of existing features" as a new feature
5. ???
6. Profit

Thank you Microsoft...

[mwvdlee]

...for demonstrating why we need ODF.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[User 956]

Thank you Microsoft for demonstrating why we need ODF.

For ultimate data portability, I prefer MDF.

And a chisel.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Marcion]

Was the Knowledge base article written by the same people who wrote the OOXML draft?

What the heck does the following mean?

> The following table contains the DWORD names and the corresponding file formats that are blocked by using the FileOpenBlock subkey:

> FilesBeforeVersion All Word files that have an nFib value that is less than the minimum nFib value as set by an administrator

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Peter_JS_Blue]

My same thoughts too !!

One of the strengths of MS was backward compatibility in most of their products - with the possible exception of Office (Please note the past tense).

Ultimately this is another nail in the coffin for MS for it proves that you can't use ANY MS Office file format for reliable long term storage - unless you are prepared to walk the MS Upgrade Treadmill.

With a serious credit-crunch looming, I suspect that more and more people will be having a long hard look at cheaper, reliable office alternatives.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[DerPflanz]

...for demonstrating why we need ODF.

How is using a different file format helping me to read older formats? This comment is not insighful, it compares apples to oranges.

Maybe you could say that it is a reason to use OpenOffice, which by default still opens the older formats. Or a reason not to upgrade to Office 2003.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Xiaran]

You know. Sometimes I think they do it on purpose. Ive just gotten thru trying to figure out how to secure Server 2003 for some slightly out of the normal configuration and had to read thru a few extremely obfuscated KB articles... its like they are actively trying to make it difficult to do things properly.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Sproggit]

Nope
Your missing where the parent is coming from, though I'll admit it is a bit obtuse..
Looky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
ODF is zipped xml, neither of which is likely to get superseded / outdated / made incompatible for a while:
1) XML is human readable (Sorta, kinda, mostly)
2) ZIP (tm) is widely used by countless libs and apps, and decompression has been reverse engineered, open sourced, dissected, inspected, and neglected (Apologies to Arlo Guthry) to death.
Writing an application to open an ODF file in the future should not be a problem, unlike this article's messy scenario.....

The Sproggg

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[JohnFluxx]

I think his point was more about that in 20 years time we will still be able to access ODF documents.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[mwvdlee]

The point wasn't in specifically using that file format but in using any file format that can somehow be guarenteed to be usable in the future. Consumers might like open standards as they enable competition and choice but for governments, this argument is much more important than any other. Microsoft has just proven that the argument is valid and that governments do need to worry about it.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for demonstrating why we need ODF.

What if someone discovers a vulnerability in ODF and they need to release a newer version of the format? Should the old version not be deprecated? Stop blaming Microsoft for everything at every opportunity, what they're doing here is a good thing to get people to use the newer, more secure document formats instead of hanging on to those ancient versions of software that haven't been patched in 5 or 6 years and have a host of vulnerabilities. How many idiots are there still out there using Office 97 or 2000 instead of 2003 or 2007? Probably a ton.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[JohnBailey]

For ultimate data portability, I prefer MDF. And a chisel. Don't forget the face mask. MDF is good but the dust is a killer.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Ok, good point. So, I'm an idiot because my company has owned Word since version 1.0, and all my earlier documents will now become unreadable?

So, what you and Microsoft are saying is that when any new version of software comes out, I need to go back, open ALL my previous documents in the new version and save them with the latest version of that format? Even documents I may never need again, because, well, I MIGHT need them, and if I ever DO need them, they'll need to be readable.

Yeah, I can see how that will increase efficiency... (/sarcasm - it's up to you where the sarcasm started).

How about they just disable the ability to WRITE in the old formats?

Wouldn't that be a better solution? Then you can still read your millions of documents, you just can't save in an old, insecure format.

I still think ODF is the way to go, but I'm trying to provide a sane way out for MS here...

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[DerPflanz]

Just one thing: have you ever try to read the XML ODF generates in a text editor? I have. I actually tried to alter something; after a minor change, the document didn't open anymore.

XML is nice. I like it. But don't say 'it is human-readable, so it is guaranteed to be read forever' (nice example is the XMI format, it took me a few months to dissect and generate simple updates to it). Whether a document format is human readable or not is a non-issue. Open formats can easily be binary (see PNG, and ZIP for that matter) and closed formats can be 'human readable' (see several XML examples). It is all about whether or not the specification is open. A reference implementation also helps a lot (see the trouble SVG has). XML is successful, because it ia simple, open and there are a lot of good implementations. Mind you that it is a meta-language and I can use it to create something utterly unreadable.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[g2devi]

> What if someone discovers a vulnerability in ODF and they need to release a newer version of the format?

Two point:
1) There are no vulnerable file formats, only vulnerable implementations. If the old MS format were vulnerable, then they could at minimum sandbox the thing or take the easy way out and disable specific vulnerable implementation functions (which likely aren't used by anyone) unless the user verifies them and manually enables them.
2) No matter what ISO does, the spec is out and you are free to use any program that implements the current version. Since libraries and government institutions must have the original unconverted documents of all their archives (note, a single space or comma can change the meaning of many documents including the constitution), you can be sure that some viewer will always exist for "Older" versions.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[cp.tar]

Ultimately this is another nail in the coffin for MS for it proves that you can't use ANY MS Office file format for reliable long term storage - unless you are prepared to walk the MS Upgrade Treadmill.

Nope.

It's even worse.

This problem only occurs if you do walk the MS Upgrade Treadmill; should you choose to remain true to the good old Office 97, all will be fine.
OK, so the problem of opening new documents someone sends you occurs in that case, but you can't have it all.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of game: either you lose old documents or you lose new ones.
The bottom line, therefore, is: you lose anyway.

Whatever you do, if you go with Microsoft, you will lose.
Best case scenario: all you lose is lots of time. However much is necessary for converting all the old documents.
Do add that to the price of Office itself.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[ozmanjusri]

Just one thing: have you ever try to read the XML ODF generates in a text editor? I have. I actually tried to alter something; after a minor change, the document didn't open anymore.

I've done that, and if you weren't able to make it work, I suggest you read a little more about the standard.

I'm in the process of writing an app that modifies existing spreadsheet and documents to add new data automatically.

ODF is easily an order of magnitude simpler to create and modify than any Microsoft format.

It's why I'm putting a big effort into promoting ODF and fighting MSOOXML. If ODF becomes the defacto standard, my job becomes massively easier and my profitability leaps.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[pegr]

Just an off-topic shout-out to the memory of Phil Katz, designer of the zip file format and related compression routines, now found everywhere in the industry. Phil died in 2000 as a result of alcoholism/depression.

Sidenote: He would have made a great /.'er... He hated Windows.

Katz Obit
Katz Remembrance

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, so OOXML is bad because it includes all kins of backward compatibility for older formats, and Microsoft is bad for disabling backwar compatibility for older formats. So we want older formats, but at the same time, we don't want older formats? Or is it that no matter what they do, Microsoft is wrong because we hate them?

Office never supported Corel Draw documents, anyway (submitter may have been thinking of .WPD (Word Perfect Documents) which were never really supported either, unless you count opening it, but jumpbling up the formatting beyond recognition as support). Last I checked, Office did not include Vector Drawing in the suite, so Why on earth would it need to support Draw docs do begin with? Hell, Word Perfect office doesn't even really support .cdr files, and they're both produce by Corel!

And as for old Word docs, everyone always whines about how supporting Word97 docs and whatnot is unnecessary bloat or whatnot, which is another case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, people are just looking for a reason to slag Microsoft.

I can see the need for a standardized file format, but it won't stop older formats from becoming obsolete. Every so often, I make the time to change over any older docs I have to newer formats, just to prevent this sort of thing from becoming a problem, and still keep the old doc, for the sake of that one guy still using word97. There's always that one guy. just like making backups, it should be common practice. You can argue that I shouldn't have to, but I shouldn't have to deal with a catastrophic drive failure either, it never hurts to be prepared, just in case.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[remmelt]

True, it's not human readable really. The point is that it's a standard and the standard is open and well documented, so humans (with some computer aid) can read it in the future as well as in the present. The MSOffice formats are not open, so humans cannot read it in the future as noted by TFA.

Hurray for open standards.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Oktober Sunset]

what i wana know is how come you never see HDF or LDF?

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[k00laid]

I love how all you Linux/Mac freaks will bitch about Microsoft evolving the way OSX does, or how Windows and its apps are so bloated, and then you pull crap like this out. The reason MS apps are so freaking bloated is that they are trying to support documents created through about 10 years of versioning. Apple does what you're complaining about here and you call it evolution, MS does it and its a travesty.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[lukas84]

You can find a table of possible nFib Values here:

http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B938810&x=16&y=18

(Search for the string "Blocked file format")

The writing style is standard for MS KB entries, i don't really get where the problem is. I've been working with Windows for a few yours though, and probably got used to it.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[SparkEE]

I think you were going for funny, but they both exist and are used quite a bit.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Iron Condor]

If ODF becomes the defacto standard, my job becomes massively easier and my profitability leaps.

Huh? Easy jobs are rarely profitable. The easier they are, the more monkeys can do them.

The real profit, as far as I can figure out, lies in those jobs that are so hard that very few even dare try -- and fewer still succeed.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Cecil]

It's not. Using a different file format is helping you to read current formats in 20 years, when Microsoft pulls this same stunt again.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[HiThere]

What you do is you have two systems. One MSWind97 (that sounds wrong!) and the other whatever the current version is. You work on the MSWind97 system and do translations on the current system. You send the translations over a network from the current MSWind system to the working one.

The problem here is that old MS systems don't recognize modern hardware. So you'll need to be running it under emulation. To control expenses, you want a free system to run you emulated system under. As time goes one you may eventually need to be running nested levels of emulation, as, e.g., modern emulators emulate hardware that MSWind95 doesn't recognize. The last time I checked there was still a work around, but I haven't tried to reinstall MSWind95 recently.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[cp.tar]

What you do is you have two systems. One MSWind97 (that sounds wrong!) and the other whatever the current version is. You work on the MSWind97 system and do translations on the current system. You send the translations over a network from the current MSWind system to the working one.

What the fsck are you talking about?

How are you going to convert documents from one format to another when the old software cannot save the document in the new format, while the new software won't open a document in the old format?

Third-party applications?

I mean, sure. But then let's show people that OpenOffice.org really can open both the old and the new documents. And convert them to whichever format they like.
Incidentally, it's an office suite as well. And you paid how much for MS Office?

The problem here is that old MS systems don't recognize modern hardware. So you'll need to be running it under emulation. To control expenses, you want a free system to run you emulated system under. As time goes one you may eventually need to be running nested levels of emulation, as, e.g., modern emulators emulate hardware that MSWind95 doesn't recognize. The last time I checked there was still a work around, but I haven't tried to reinstall MSWind95 recently.

I don't know how this is pertinent to this discussion anyway, but you're only proving my point: just dump MS Office if you need MS Office compatibility.
Paradoxical as it may sound.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Toonol]

But simplifying tasks can allow you to spend more time and effort on the truly difficult and profitable parts of your job. If his job was solely deciphering file formats, ODF might make it harder to rake in the bucks. But that leads back to the buggy whip manufacturing analogy.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[doublem]

Personally, I welcome the change, because it will give me one more reason to tell people to install Open Office. Who knows? This may have been the work of a sinister OSS advocate within Microsoft out to drive more people away from MS Software.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Some_Llama]

"What the heck does the following mean?"

Well it looks like the blocking of older formats is done by a registry check office does on start, the admin values would be something you could set as a group policy... pretty standard stuff.

But blocking compatibility via the registry? nothing to worry about then i suppose...

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[MightyYar]

When Apple releases an "update" that reduces functionality, they get called on it here.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Marcion]

>The writing style is standard for MS KB entries, i don't really get where the problem is. I've been working with
>Windows for a few yours though, and probably got used to it.

Well, I admit I have been on Linux for the whole 21st Century; in the Linux/Unix world the standard of documentation is normally far far higher than this. I.e. one must write in Plain English and explain your own invented terminology the first time you use it.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[cp.tar]

Personally, I welcome the change, because it will give me one more reason to tell people to install Open Office. Who knows? This may have been the work of a sinister OSS advocate within Microsoft out to drive more people away from MS Software.

Do you think that's what Daniel Robbins did in Microsoft?

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[jayp00001]

Or Word viewer- which is unaffected by this.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[protolith]

HDF is usualy called masonite
LDF is usually the particle board that cheap furniture is made of

Both quite common

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Haeleth]

Ultimately this is another nail in the coffin for MS for it proves that you can't use ANY MS Office file format for reliable long term storage unless you are prepared to walk the MS Upgrade Treadmill.

Or, you know, just follow the instructions in the KB article.

But the real issue is that most of the world apparently is prepared to walk the MS Upgrade Treadmill. Most of the world appears not even to be aware that there's any alternative... look at all the people complaining about the way they think Microsoft is going to "make" them upgrade to Vista. You and I may know better, but that doesn't alter the fact that most people don't.

With a serious credit-crunch looming, I suspect that more and more people will be having a long hard look at cheaper, reliable office alternatives.

With a serious credit crunch looming, I suspect that decision-makers will continue to drink up Microsoft's TCO advertising, and continue to reject any suggestion of switching to a cheaper alternative. After all, Microsoft-funded studies have "proven" that even completely free software is more expensive than Office, haven't they? Who's going to risk the massive expense of switching to OpenOffice.org when there's a credit crunch looming?

Don't get me wrong. I hate MS Office and go to extraordinary lengths to avoid using it whenever possible. But I'm not so deluded as to imagine I'm anything but unusual in this. Yeah, maybe this is another nail in Microsoft's coffin... but there's not much point nailing up a coffin when its supposed occupant is still walking round outside, is there?

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[darkonc]

How is using a different file format helping me to read older formats? This comment is not insighful, it compares apples to oranges.

A few things fall out of switching to ODF:

• You're freed from the mind-bogglingly arbitrary decisions of Microsoft -- such as this one, RE: file formats.
• Switching to ODF makes it easier to switch to OpenOffice.
• If you're using OpenOffice, it's easier to open 'archaic' Microsoft formats than when using MS Office (and Microsoft is, apparently, intent on widening the gap)
• Even if you're using MS-Office to create ODF files, you still have the added safety of knowing that other people are making software that reads (and writes) the ODF format -- That way, if/when MS pulls support from ODF (and/or OOXML) 5 or 10 years from now, you won't be completely SOL in terms of being able to read your old files.
  (yeah, I know -- MS claims that OOXML will be 'open', but:
  • we really have no promise that MS will ever actually support the 'open' version of OOXML that is ultimately passed by ISO -- and
  • the hurdles to implementing ODF (as documented -- and not documented by Microsoft) are so huge that it is doubtful that a full implementation will ever be completed by any independent third party.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[sumdumass]

I think he was going for the copy past into new document thing.

I have done it in the past for a few things. It usually borks the formatting.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is the biggest load of crap. If you're still using Framework (or whatever) files, why wouldn't you just... hell... you know... save them in a new format when you open them? And if you really only open the file once a decade, who the hell cares if you can't open it anymore.

Anyhow, everybody knows plain text files will always open. You're barking up a ridiculous tree.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[poqueyo]

This is why I switched to OpenOffice several years ago and never looked back. Yes there are some incompatibilities in an MS world, but for most users, it has the same functionality as Office.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[dave87656]

Re: "Best case scenario: all you lose is lots of time. However much is necessary for converting all the old documents."

It may be worse than that: I've been archiving to DVD's. These are read only which means I would have to convert these documents *EVERY TIME* I need to reference them.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[HiThere]

OK. Maybe you need three systems, but two can be run under emulation (the MSWind97 and, say, XP, to act as a translator). As for documents...last time I used MSOffice it allowed one to save to several prior versions. Admittedly that was nearing a decade ago now, so it may no longer be true.

As for "copy into past"...??? I have no idea what that means. Possibly the same thing.

Also...borks the formatting? Well, yes, it does. In my experience nearly anything you do with an MSOffice document either borks the formatting, or just makes it unreadable. PDF is much more reliable for fixed documents, and if it's live, why lumber it with MSOffice formats? (Yes, I know "Management has decided that...", and you have to live with it. There's no earthly reason to defend it.)

Also, in case it wasn't obvious, I was proposing a "solution" that would have "sort of" worked...and would have been terrible to use. It was a *joke*! While MS has its face set against interoperable systems, any such are going to be kludges that will only work until MS notices them. The only real solution is to segregate MS to a separate network partition, and only allow interchange of documents whose documentation is adequate and accessible (I didn't say open, because I'm including PDF, and I think Adobe holds rights that prevent it from being truly open...though I'm not certain. And I'm including a large subset of rdf. [I know MS didn't open it, but much of how it works is known, and that subset is allowable...unless there are patents that I don't know about.]) This would be a "pretty good" solution. MSOffice can write pdf files (with a third party extension), and I understand that on Linux pdf files can be edited with pdfedit, though I've never tried. And in the case of MS, I feel that a 3rd party extension is likely to write cleaner code than the obfuscated code that MS would feel obliged to create.

That said, pdf files are hardly ideal for dynamic documents. ODF (odt?) files are far superior in that context. And anyone can download OpenOffice for free, so there's no argument about cost. Expecting OOo files to be able to reproduce exactly what's in an MSOffice document is absurd. If they could do it, MS would change their programs so that they no longer could, so it's a silly race to get into. Get close enough to handle 95%, perhaps. If MS munges things up too much they'll acutally manage to infuriate their own customers. (It's difficult. Anyone who voluntarily sticks with MS must either not know that there are alternatives, or must be a masochist. [OTOH, it's been nearly a decade since I used MS systems...I may possibly be out of date. But I don't believe it.])

Did my years of using MS software leave me ill-disposed towards them? Well, when I started using them I was very favorably disposed towards them. And I have a tendency towards nostalgia. So perhaps there were a few reasons. I would not trust them with a plugged nickel...and a nickel is worth a lot less now than when that phrase was coined.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[mwvdlee]

Wow. I was unaware Word-viewer allowed me to edit old documents. Thanks for the info!

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[jayp00001]

Why would you need to edit a document in its original format? If I had to edit an old document I'd copy and paste it into a new document in a newer format.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missing where the parent is coming from, though I'll admit it is a bit obtuse..

Obtuse: dull, slow-witted, lacking intelligence or sensitivity

What's "obtuse" about the GGP? Arcane, perhaps; obscure even, but ... obtuse? I found it quite erudite myself: concise and right on the mark.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[cp.tar]

That's why it is called a best case scenario.

Re:Thank you Microsoft...

[Sproggit]

Compact Oxford English Dictionary
obtuse

      adjective 1 annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand. 2 (of an angle) more than 90 and less than 180. 3 not sharp-pointed or sharp-edged; blunt.

Meaning 3) intended.
Commonly used to describe something not immediately easy to grasp.

Quote to illustrate:
"We always wanted more than one level. We never want to be obtuse or put things in code. We've always wanted to communicate and be accessible."
Tina Weymouth

But I'll concur, I should have used 'unclear'. :)

The Sproggg

Oh, yes it is...

[TiggertheMad]

I don't know if I'd characterize it as "mind-bogglingly complex". It's a series of registry edits.

I would. The average slob (who could very well be someone who doesn't update their old files for long periods of time) using windows does not know what the registry is, let alone how to modify it. Also consider this: What is more dangerous and likely to cause serious damage, an old file format or a average user trying to fix their registry to read old files?

Re:Oh, yes it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you have to send a group of files to another person who's not technically inclined to make
regedit hacks or is afraid to do so.
Is there a reliabile block converter for old file formats? It should have been an option deep in a menu
somewhere.

Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Zymergy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
Examples:
-No DirectX 10.x API for WinXP or Win2k. (The nature of the API to be a higher-level Application Programming Interface, I'd forgive not developing for Win2k as it is no longer for sale, but there's NO good reason to deny the API in WinXP, other than to force clearly Planned Obsolescence)
-No IE7 for Win2k. (interestingly, Firefox still bests ALL versions of IE..)
-No Support on your year-old PC for Full Windows Vista use. (Again, why? Even Apple and Linux have pretty eye-candied desktops working on older hardware)
-No to the Sale of WinXP to OEM (non-Business) customers this month http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/12/microsoft-pulling-oem-windows-xp-next-january/.
-Etc... (insert your own here)

I know that in my present line of work, my colleagues and I write meticulous research reports for our multi-million dollar clients.
Our clients specifically require us to NOT use *any* MS Office 2007 file format; We are to utilize 'not newer than MS Office 2003 format'. (Typically Excel, Access, and Word formats are used).
Our clients have gone on to clarify, specifically, that the Office 2007 file formats are incompatible with the older MS Office versions and necessitate needless corporate updating for their thousands of internal users, (not to mention the client has decades of reports on file that get updated every 10 to 20 years, often utilizing the original editable report document).

I too will soon be installing in Open Office very soon. (Hopefully the Excel 2003 formulas and those dating back to Excel 2.0 all work properly in Open Office?)...
It appears that this "update" is not so much for security or even for ease of development (because it WAS previously WORKING in situ). It stragetically forces users of the older versions of MS Office to update to the new version (or rather adopt the new format) due to interoperability issues.

If MS Office 2003 did 'it' before and it does not do 'it' now, post-SP3... that is *Intentional*, not "For Your Protection".
-This would be akin to IE8 not opening 'older' web page formats at all because they used some older and (potentially) unsafe format of html, CSS, Scripting etc.. it deemed unsafe!

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Macthorpe]

You're talking about them adding support to operating systems which are 6-7 years old. Apple just ended support for 'Classic' mode for OS9 in the new version, the changeover from which happened in March 2001. XP was only released 6 months later than that. Can you name a single open source vendor that will support you using a 7 year old version of their product? Of course you can't.

No DirectX 10.x API for WinXP or Win2k Vista uses a completely new display driver model, WDDM, which has features that are required for DirectX 10 that XDDM doesn't support (e.g. virtualized video memory).

No Support on your year-old PC for Full Windows Vista use. I don't think you know what you're talking about here. What do you mean by "doesn't support"? Full Windows Vista use can be achieved on any DirectX 9.0 capable graphics card, which is pretty much any card created since 2002. It also requires a 1GHz CPU, which have been available since the release of XP, as has the prerequisite amount of RAM.

No to the Sale of WinXP to OEM (non-Business) customers this month That's been extended to June.

Our clients have gone on to clarify, specifically, that the Office 2007 file formats are incompatible with the older MS Office versions and necessitate needless corporate updating for their thousands of internal users, Your clients are wrong. You can download a compatibility pack and readers for Office 2007 documents for Office 2003.

Given that Apple seem to end support after 6-7 years, and there's no evidence that any OSS offering will extend support that far back, why is there suddenly an outcry with Microsoft stopping support file formats which are now over a decade old?

Seems to be bloody-minded hypocrisy.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[IntlHarvester]

Wow, you saw right through Microsoft's masterplan to persecute the remaining 12 Windows 3.1 users by eliminating Quattro Pro support. You truly have great industry insight.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Tim C]

No Support on your year-old PC for Full Windows Vista use.

Pure FUD. Vista runs just fine on my 2 year old PC. I broadly agree with your other points, but this does nothing but degrade your entire argument.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[plasmacutter]

"No DirectX 10.x API for WinXP or Win2k"
Vista uses a completely new display driver model, WDDM, which has features that are required for DirectX 10 that XDDM doesn't support (e.g. virtualized video memory).

you mean WD-DRM.
the "features" required for DX10 involve numerous DRM frameworks which severely hinder system stability, including hardware based DRM and the requirement for video hardware to be "pre-approved"(TM) by hollywood.

This is the real reason why they refuse to put DX10 on XP. It would be trivial to make a sizeable patch to implement the required graphics frameworks and APIs, but XP logo testing doesn't require this pre-approved DRM hardware, and they cant have DX10 running on "non-secure" hardware, otherwise baby hollywood may not give HD media center dominance to microsoft (as if that's going to happen).

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Office opens back to Word 6, in fact it opens WinWord 5 doc files and StarWriter and more. I guess you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[kurt555gs]

" I am Bill Gates, and I approved this message "

How does this obvious Microsoft shill get modded up to a 4?

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your clients are wrong. You can download a compatibility pack and readers for Office 2007 documents for Office 2003.

With more rendering problem that you can ever imagine even using an MS office files create on a PC open on a Mac MS Office does have a better rendering than that. I "love" the "feature" present in MS Office that are changing all equations field in image field between Mac and PC.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I would consider file format compatibility to be different from software API compatibility. I don't want to lose 10 year old files simply because the software vendor deliberately and needlessly removes that compatibility after the fact. This hole bit is part of the "digital hole" that people talk about, data in outdated file formats just becomes unreadable.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Macthorpe]

Sorry, but Gutmann's article is based on zero actual use of the Vista system. He does no actual usage studies, no experimentation, no nothing. All he does is gather together forum posts about Vista and say "Well, if this is all correct then this should happen."

Unless, of course, you can link me to the actual empirical evidence that he collected that DRM in Vista behaves exactly as he says it does.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Zak3056]

Our clients have gone on to clarify, specifically, that the Office 2007 file formats are incompatible with the older MS Office versions and necessitate needless corporate updating for their thousands of internal users

Office 2007 file formats are readable and writable by Office 2000, 2002, and 2003.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Macthorpe]

Isn't that why both ODF and OOXML are just zipped up XML files? You could easily argue that Microsoft and open source are taking steps to move to a file format that won't just 'become' unreadable.

Unfortunately it does get to a point where fixing bugs in old rendering code becomes financially unfeasible for a company that actually has to pay for it's coders.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[padonak]

Microsoft shills get mod points too, probably more often than you do.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Detritus]

Full Windows Vista use can be achieved on any DirectX 9.0 capable graphics card, which is pretty much any card created since 2002.

You're wrong there. I got burned and had to upgrade to an NVIDIA graphics card for Vista to work properly. I had an almost-new system with an NVIDIA motherboard chipset, ATI AGP graphics card and AMD Athlon64 X2 CPU. This particular combination of hardware works great under XP and runs like crap under Vista. There's some sort of compatibility problem with Vista's AGP support and this set of hardware. It's now a well-known problem, at least to those who got burned by it. It can be "fixed" by replacing the ATI graphics card with an NVIDIA graphics card, or by downgrading the CPU to single-core. Neither Microsoft or NVIDIA have done anything besides deny it was a problem and then offer vague promises of a future fix.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Macthorpe]

What card were you using? I initially had Vista operating on a Radeon 9800. If it was a 9250 card or earlier, they don't fully support DX9 so they won't work.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[padonak]

Unfortunately it does get to a point where fixing bugs in old rendering code becomes financially unfeasible for a company that actually has to pay for it's coders. Boo-hoo, poor Microsoft! "Financially unfeasible"... It's not like MS Office is the most popular and most expensive office software in the world... No, they have to release an update specifically to block existing code which nobody expects them to fix.

On a less related note, you recently wondered why people call you a shill. It's shit like this, when you feel obligated to defend Microsoft's most idiotic or evil behaviour.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Sir Holo]

Our clients have gone on to clarify, specifically, that the Office 2007 file formats are incompatible with the older MS Office versions and necessitate needless corporate updating for their thousands of internal users,

Your clients are wrong. You can download a compatibility pack and readers for Office 2007 documents for Office

Do you really think that you are going to tell a multi-million-dollar customer, "Do it our way, or you can take your millions of dollars of business elsewhere?"

The customer is always right.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[stewbacca]

Your clients are wrong. You can download a compatibility pack and readers for Office 2007 documents for Office 2003.

Clients are never wrong, as long as they keep paying.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Detritus]

ATI Radeon 9550, which is fully compatible with DirectX 9.0.

http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9550/index.html

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Vellmont]

Given that Apple seem to end support after 6-7 years, and there's no evidence that any OSS offering will extend support that far back, why is there suddenly an outcry with Microsoft stopping support file formats which are now over a decade old?

A whole decade eh?

I'm not sure what file format OSS and Apple have dropped that are older than 1997. But just off the top of my head I'd guess that plain old ascii format with CR/LF is 25 years old at least. GIF is more than 20 years old. There's plenty of OSS, closed source software, even Microsoft software that supports these formats.

Your excuse that these formats are "over a decade old" is pretty lame. Do you really think people don't have old files they want to read 5-10 years later?

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Nevyn]

Can you name a single open source vendor that will support you using a 7 year old version of their product? Of course you can't.

See the RHEL support policy, everything gets a 7 year support policy by default. IIRC RHEL-2.1 has at least a couple of years extension from that too.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[KillerBob]

-No DirectX 10.x API for WinXP or Win2k. (The nature of the API to be a higher-level Application Programming Interface, I'd forgive not developing for Win2k as it is no longer for sale, but there's NO good reason to deny the API in WinXP, other than to force clearly Planned Obsolescence)

The reason it's not supported in XP is because the Driver model for Vista is completely different from the one in XP. Drivers are privileged in XP, and they're sandboxed in Vista... There's more to it than that, but basically, the reason that DirectX 10 doesn't work in XP is because the HAL, at which DirectX versions 1-9 operate, doesn't exist any more. There never was a version of DX9 for Windows Vista, and while you can install DX9 in Vista, the OS will actually catch the interface and force it to use DX10. The only reason to install DX9 is if you have a game that was stupidly written, and insists on a specific version of DX to be installed in order to load. One of the examples in my game library would be Dreamfall: The Longest Journey. Amazing game, btw. :)

That isn't to say that they couldn't backport the interfaces and implement them in a WinXP version of DirectX, but some of the things that DX10 is capable of simply aren't possible with the driver model that XP uses. Of course, that desire to avoid being forced to upgrade to Vista is the reason I bought a Nintendo Wii.

-No IE7 for Win2k. (interestingly, Firefox still bests ALL versions of IE..)

IE7 is a piece of junk. I have it on my current laptop, running XP MCE 2005, but there's exactly two websites I visit with it: Windows Update, and ifit.com, which is a website which uses an ActiveX control through the sound card to download new programs and patterns to my treadmill. Everything else I visit gets loaded and works perfectly in Firefox.

-No Support on your year-old PC for Full Windows Vista use. (Again, why? Even Apple and Linux have pretty eye-candied desktops working on older hardware)

My old laptop was bought in February 2005. It's got an Athlon64 3500+, 1GB of RAM, and a Radeon XPress 200M with 128MB soldered on. Finally, it's got an 80GB hard drive, a built-in v.92 modem, 100mbit LAN, a cardreader, and built-in WLAN. Compaq Presario R4035CA if you want to look up the specs for yourself.

At one point, it was running Vista RC2. With Aero Glass enabled. And wasn't really that sluggish. This is a computer that was 2 years old when Vista was released, and is now almost 3 years old, and it was and still is capable of running Vista with all the bells and whistles enabled, while remaining perfectly usable. I tested it with the Vista version of Media Center, using a remote control (that didn't need any drivers), as a movie player, DVD player, TV out, playing games such as Jade Empire, Neverwinter Nights 2, and Jedi Academy, and used it in school. It worked fine. Right now, it's running Zenwalk Linux.

I'm not going to argue that planned obsolescense doesn't exist. It does. And MS is guilty of it. But you're exaggerating. By a long shot. Know whereof you speak.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Macthorpe]

The customer is always right Actually, the customer is capable of being incredibly wrong. Of course you can choose whether or not to tell them that. It doesn't change the fact that sometimes the customer doesn't know any better.

I think you're arguing something I didn't actually say.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Macthorpe]

Boo-hoo, poor Microsoft! "Financially unfeasible"... It's not like MS Office is the most popular and most expensive office software in the world... No, they have to release an update specifically to block existing code which nobody expects them to fix. You just proved my point. Nobody expects Microsoft to support this code, so they took steps to make sure that they're not held responsible for supporting it by disabling it's use. Seeing as this is a manual update, people using old documents are free to convert to a newer format before installing SP3. It's pretty simple.

On a less related note, you recently wondered why people call you a shill. Er, no. I've never been confused as to why people like you call me a shill. The fact that I'm willing to rationally discuss in favour of Microsoft, mainly. Trouble is, trolls like you take this as an attack on open source, which it's not.

What you'll actually find I said was "Stop accusing me of things you can't prove and actually argue the point".

Posters here are actually unable to conceive that I might write these comments of my own free will, because they're so entrenched in the doublespeak and groupthink that pervades Slashdot that they're slaves to it. Sorry to break it to you, but people are not intelligent because they parrot the 'lolhateM$' party line and get modded up for it.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[IIH]

Our clients have gone on to clarify, specifically, that the Office 2007 file formats are incompatible with the older MS Office versions and necessitate needless corporate updating for their thousands of internal users,

Your clients are wrong. You can download a compatibility pack and readers for Office 2007 documents for Office 2003.

The download and installation of the compatibility pack to update Office 2003 to read 2007 files looks like an update to me. Granted it's not a forced upgrade but it is indeed a forced update so the clients' of the parent's post are perfectly correct.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Zymergy]

I agree there is some interoperability. But, often in our complex documents (mainly large multi-tabbed Excel Spreadsheets) formatting is "lost in translation" between the native Office format through a downloaded MS conversion add-in or if a differing version of MS Office Application is used. Based on out results with one version or another, many of us who have other versions of MS Office, (including Office XP, Office 2000, or Office 2007), we usually have Office 2003 installed somewhere on some computer to verify the formatting of the fine document before transfer to the 'client'. (I believe there is a dedicated set of workers in the office who re-proof all work and they "tweak" all work pre-client submission.
No matter what your precision and accuracy may be for the final product, having your formatting appearing all *screwed-up* in the final product is unprofessional for our 'clients' and we take significant strides to avoid it. I am not a programmer, but I believe there are and have been far too many cooks in the kitchen in the MS Office Product development group for some time. If only the 'formatting' for Office documents was as precise and accurate between conversion engines as the 'formatting' of True Type fonts is. It is true that the various versions can be mostly read and written cross-version in MS Office, but reformatting AGAIN an otherwise print-perfect research report with data spreadsheet is not acceptable in my line work. If I were in charge, perhaps we'd utilize Open Office or something more reliable and consistent on formatting and editable between versions, but alas I am not. It is what it is.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[PitaBred]

Seeing as this is a manual update, people using old documents are free to convert to a newer format before installing SP3. It's pretty simple. Only if they're aware of it. Does Microsoft say in big, bold letters on the SP3 download page that it'll break old documents, and you should do the conversion before upgrading? Or is it buried in some button-initiated popup, if it's shown at all? I'm betting it's the second. Oh, wait... looks like I'm right. You aren't rationally discussing Microsoft, you're either stupid or biased, because you can't see the inherent assumptions that you make. SP3 breaking the ability to open old documents even contravenes what Microsoft has implicitly promised as far as being backwards compatible. Here's the exact quote:

Open XML, on the other hand, reflects the rich set of capabilities in Office 2007, offers a platform for exciting user productivity scenarios through user-defined schema, and was designed to be backwards compatible with billions of existing documents. If Office 2007 isn't backwards compatible, then they're welshing on their promises, not to mention responsibilities as a monopoly.

The reason people call you a shill is because you quack like a duck, smell like a duck and look like a duck.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[PitaBred]

Yes, install more Microsoft software, which may or may not support formats in the future, as they've proven from their previous actions. Not to mention the management issues with getting all that software pushed out to users, which requires all the latest patches (some of which are often understandably not pushed out by IT departments until they're properly vetted). Sounds like a great idea to me. Reminds me of a quote...

"Thank you sir, may I have another?"

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Macthorpe]

Does Microsoft say in big, bold letters on the SP3 download page that it'll break old documents, and you should do the conversion before upgrading? It won't there, because you linked to SP3 for Office XP. So no, you're not right. If you had linked the correct page, then you'll see there is a knowledge base article linked there: You receive an error message when you try to open a file or to save a file after you install Office 2003 Service Pack 3. In that document it explains what has been done regarding old formats.

SP3 breaking the ability to open old documents even contravenes what Microsoft has implicitly promised as far as being backwards compatible. Open XML is not Office 2003, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

The reason people call you a shill is because you quack like a duck, smell like a duck and look like a duck. Do I really have to spell this out again? I don't give a flying fuck what you people think of me. I'd rather be correct than a sheep.

Re:Typical MS "Planned Obselescence"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what file format OSS and Apple have dropped that are older than 1997. iWork cannot open files created in AppleWorks 5, which was still being bundled with new Macs in 1999.

Not really

[TiggertheMad]

Their sneaky brand of evil is saying two conflicting things and making us believe they work together.

Ok, I love to MS bash as much as the next guy, but I cannot fault them for what you are mentioning. The thing that a lot of MS haters forget is that it is a HUGE company, and the right hand often really doesnt know what the left hand is doing, and often seperate teams have their own agendas.

Modern MS is like the government: There might be a few people that are trying to pull shit, but for the most part it is just a big, slow, beauracracy.

Re:Not really

[mabhatter654]

Say M$'s not evil to the former head of IT for Mass.! He formed a committee on archiving electronic and their opinion was that Microsoft had not PROMISED to maintain formats "forever" and now... so another more stable format was needed and everybody went nuts he was anti-Microsoft. Now, Microsoft is dropping 10 year old formats with no announcement and no easy way to update your archived docs to newer formats!!! I'd say the guy was absolutely RIGHT!!!

Will they apologize and get him his job back? Microsoft still didn't "promise" or sign a CONTRACT to support old docs, they made nothing Legally binding; but they didn't mind misleading the public to get somebody fired for planning ahead for this event.. that's pretty evil.

Re:Not really

[PitaBred]

I don't know who you're talking about, but you'd probably do him a favor forwarding this article to him :)

Re:Not really

[TiggertheMad]

but they didn't mind misleading the public to get somebody fired for planning ahead for this event.. that's pretty evil.

you are missing the point. Who is 'they'? You can blame 'MS' all you want, but at some point, somebody is making decisions. I claim that that behavior like this is a result of people not communicating, forgetting stuff, changing jobs, etc. I have worked there, nobody gave a damn about running enemys out of bisnuess. Most people were overworked and just wated to get the next release out the door. Perhaps the upper management is 'evil', but I will bet on people being stupid, lazy, and inept over deliberate malice any day. Money in the bank.

Don't worry ...

[ianare]

It's not like you'll be able to open your newer office documents either.

Mod parent up!

[foreverdisillusioned]

He's right... their excuse is a joke. It can't be that hard--especially considering the huge profit margin on Office--to figure out a way of opening these file formats securely. It's not even executable data, for pete's sake! And if they *are* talking about macros or something, well then just disable the macro part until you figure out a way to sandbox it.

The richest tech company in the world is throwing its hands up in the air and saying that can't figure out how to make its most profitable (and presumably most actively developed) products render a human readable, non-executable data format safely--PLEASE. This is nothing more than a very clumsy (but brazen) attempt to make people upgrade. I'm surprised they have the balls to do it, what with their current OOXML circus.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Helldesk Hound]

> This is nothing more than a very clumsy (but brazen) attempt to
> make people upgrade. I'm surprised they have the balls to do
> it, what with their current OOXML circus.

I'm not surprised at all. :o)

It is what one expects from a company that does not respect the people who have used its software (and re-purchased it several times) over many years.

Would Adobe even consider doing this with Photoshop? No.

What we are seeing is nothing more than a "vendor lock-in" ploy.

I'm almost certain that M$ will not fully support OOXML if it gets approved by the ISO. Lets be realistic - M$ Doesn't actually support it now!

Re:Mod parent up!

[totally bogus dude]

It is what one expects from a company that does not respect the people who have used its software (and re-purchased it several times) over many years.

Sounds reasonable to me. I mean, do you respect stupid people, even if they give you their money?

Re:Mod parent up!

[goldspider]

Could we make 2008 the year we bury the sophomoric "M$" cliche? It really shouldn't surprise anyone, anymore, that Microsoft is out to make money.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Hoi Polloi]

They are doing a good job prodding me to seriously consider the online Office alternatives that are popping up.

Re:Mod parent up!

[bhtooefr]

Unless it's buffer overflows...

But, the first macro viruses were on Word 6.0, which is allowed!

Re:Mod parent up!

[frank_adrian314159]

Sounds reasonable to me. I mean, do you respect stupid people, even if they give you their money?

No, the money is a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition.

Re:Mod parent up!

[blincoln]

It's not even executable data, for pete's sake!

A lot of older Office file formats (and MS file formats in general, at least in my experience) are basically partial memory dumps. So yes, I can imagine it would be pretty hard to even come close to guaranteeing that opening all of the decrepit old files stored in those formats would be safe.

Re:Mod parent up!

[msuarezalvarez]

Buffer overflows occur in the software.

What this patch means is, that Microsoft has finally recognized that it is not able to provide parsers/writers/etc for these formats that are not subject to buffer overflows. The patch is thus basically a confession of ineptitude.

Re:Mod parent up!

[bhtooefr]

Exactly. :)

But, I was just trying to think of ways OTHER than buffer overflows that a Word document could exploit the system, and before Word 6.0, it wasn't really all that POSSIBLE - Word macros were much less powerful before VBA.

Anyone Read the KB Article?

[DavidD_CA]

I know this is /. but come on. You read the summary and take it for face-value.

The KB article plainly states that Word and Excel 2003 can still open the documents, but they are blocked by default. And if you want to open them, you'll need a registry change to do so. Or, you click on the link in the KB article and a script does it for you.

You can bash Microsoft all you want, but for this? They found a security issue with a product that was released four years ago. They made it lightly more secure. Users who have issues can run the KB script or not.

Or they can upgrade to Office 2007 which doesn't have the vulnerability or the issues opening the older formats.

So, what exactly is the problem here?

Re:Anyone Read the KB Article?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The security issue is not the format but the software.

2. They block it by default.

3. There is no easy way for normal users to figure this out

4. The fix is too complicated. It should be just a click of a button.

Re:Anyone Read the KB Article?

[pembo13]

How's the koolaid today? A bit too much sugar?

Re:Anyone Read the KB Article?

[Vexorian]

The KB article plainly states that Word and Excel 2003 can still open the documents, but they are blocked by default. And if you want to open them, you'll need a registry change to do so

That's fun, considering that's exactly what the summary says.

Most windows users can't dream of doing registry editing. Thus MS is practically removing those formats.

If you have some record in which you saved word documents back in 1994, congratulations! you have just learned why we need open formats...

Re:Anyone Read the KB Article?

[stewbacca]

The problem is with the default behavior. Who wants to muck around with registries just to access data? I'd rather have access to my data with the risk of exposing security problems, than the other way around.

Re:Anyone Read the KB Article?

[KillerBob]

And when was the last time you opened a document in Word 6 or WordPerfect 5.0 format? I mean, I still have some in WP5 format, but they're part of my grandfather's legacy. We keep them around because we need them to enforce some of his patents and to continue development of the project he was working on when he died (a very efficient hydraulic engine, suitable for power generation or in construction equipment), but we also keep an installation of WP5.0 for DOS, on a computer that's actually running DOS 6.22, specifically for that purpose. It's a P2-350 with 256MB of RAM, which we use to run his simulation software as well as open some of his documents.

I have Office 2003 with SP3 running on my laptop. And I haven't had a single document fail to open. Most of the important ones have already been converted to a more current format. PDF for the most part, since we don't want to do any actual editing of them, just viewing.

Ahh, the joys of having an inventor for a grandfather. And some of his inventions, or at least derivatives of them, are probably in your house right now.

You can still...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still open the files in Open Office :)

RHEL is supported for 7 years

[Sits]

I wish I could mod you up and still reply to your post because your basic point is sound (vendors frequently stop supporting old software). However I just quickly want to say that RHEL is currently supported 7 years so yes, I can name a vendor that will support you using a 7 year old version of their product - Red Hat. (You can argue that we're talking about formats rather than programs though)

Now as to that compatiblity pack for Office 2003... Earlier last year I had reason to ask someone to install the file format the addon. The problem was that the 2007 document in question was sent with a .doc extension which meant that Word 2003 still refused to open it after the addon was in place. Changing the extension on the file to .docx solved the problem but it was annoying because I didn't already know that was all that was needed especially given that Windows doesn't show extensions by default. Once the file was renamed it worked fine.

Re:RHEL is supported for 7 years

[Macthorpe]

To be fair, the Red Hat 7-year support phase is 'errata only', i.e. mission critical bugs only, but I accept your point and thank you for the clarification.

To be honest, I haven't had a 2007 docx document save in .doc format, so I haven't seen the behaviour you describe... bit of an odd one!

Re:RHEL is supported for 7 years

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds that the person who sent the file simply changed the file extension from docx to doc and thought others with office 2003 can such open the file. I enjoy bash MS as much as the next people here, but this is hardly a MS's problem. If you do that to any file in the world, most program will be confused, regardless open source or not.

This why we need open formats

[golodh]

I agree with the discussion so far, but since Microsoft is the only one in charge of MS Office code, it's no use getting upset. Microsoft will simply manage their formats as suits them best.

This is why we simply need to move all our documents from MS proprietary formats into some kind of Open format. Then, with the right plug-ins, we'll no longer be affected when MS decides to drop support for something. Or at the very least we'll have a good and convenient workaround.

Re:This why we need open formats

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we simply need to move all our documents from MS proprietary formats into some kind of Open format.

These aren't MS format documents.

Re:27 Billion USELESS Gigabytes 2 b Archived by 20

[CronoCloud]

Then again, I'm finding it difficult to open my old Macwrite documents (from 1992) on my current iMac because the old Macwrite format isn't supported...

BasiliskII http://basilisk.cebix.net/

Emulate an old mac running Clarisworks, MacWrite, whatever. open old MacWrite file, print to file (as postscript), copy back to host OS.

TeX is forever.

[chris_sawtell]

It's true.

http://www.tug.org/

Use a front end of choice if you want. E.G.:-

http://www.latex-project.org/
http://www.lyx.org/
http://kile.sourceforge.net/
http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex

A Google search on "tex frontend" will yield many more.

Honest, before all the Deities, it's that simple.

OT, ignore!

[totally bogus dude]

It is 2007. Do you know what your operating system is doing?

Your sig is out of date!

"mind-bogglingly complex workaround"

[tnhtnh]

"mind-bogglingly complex workaround"? As per the KB, you can download an MMC snap in and adjust the settings within group policy. I dont think thats extremely complex?

MS still have the copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

So they ought to be supporting it because nobody else CAN.

Can purchasers have their money back? After all, MS have had 10 years to make money off the investment.

Or is that argument only good for MS?

"file formats" insecure?

[plasmacutter]

File formats are merely blocks of data.

sounds like it's office 2003 which is insecure if they can't implement a way to read that data without offering chunnel sized holes to exploit.

Sounds to me like a supreme example of laziness. Their old implementation had some fundamental flaw, or a hole they never tracked down, and they didn't feel like rewriting it, so they tried to pull a fast one and act innocent when hundreds of corps demanded an answer.

Re:"file formats" insecure?

[Urkki]

File formats are merely blocks of data. Executable programs are merely blocks of data, too.

sounds like it's office 2003 which is insecure if they can't implement a way to read that data without offering chunnel sized holes to exploit. True, but you make it sound like it'd be easy to securely handle blocks of data. Not so, and it also does have a lot to do with the file format, not only the program handling it.

Handling a plain text file or a raw binary data file without internal structure 100% securely is perhaps practially possible (but certainly not automatic, all it takes is one tiny bug at one suble branch of code...). A binary executable is almost impossible to handle securely. Everything else falls somewhere in between.

There are right answers allright.

[jotaeleemeese]

The problem is what is the question and who is the questioner.

This kind of compatibility issues would not arise if formats were open and fully documented. The answer to problems with file accessibility is open standards, but the question comes from the users, not the companies, for the companies the answer is closed formats since they are interested in revenue, not their users anymore (specially true when it comes to companies in monopolistic positions).

The idiocy is that if file formats were open, MS would not have to necessarily worry about backwards compatibility, since the market out there would see to that. Oh wait, that would enhance competition. My bad Uncle Ballmer.

My mistake.. assumed MS had some intelligence left

[foreverdisillusioned]

I just assumed that, since Office is their second most important product and OOXML is obviously a carefully constructed weapon to counter the looming threat of ODF and OSS in general, they'd have enough sense to act with some sense of... subtlety or something.

For now, they may still be king but Microsoft's market share isn't the impenetrable fortress it was in the late 90s/early 00s. OS X, Linux (Ubuntu especially), Google, Firefox (and now ODF) have made a significant, measurable impact these last few years. it seemed like they were going to take the smart route and at least FEIGN an interest in open standards/open formats (kind of like Vista feigns having *nix-type security)... instead, they're now flailing around with the ole' triple-E gauntlet (Embrace/Extend/Extinguish), and this time... it's with their own proprietary standards!? Haven't they seen enough backlash to realize this is only going to hurt them in the long run? Is ANYONE at all looking beyond their next quarterly earnings report?

I guess I simply overestimated the overall sanity and intelligence of those in charge. Cue the Ballmer-chair jokes... they're juvenile, but really, what else is there to say?

And then people ask why we need open formats.

[jotaeleemeese]

There is the example proponents of open formats have been talking about all along, brought to you live from the company we love to hate because they pull this nonsense every time a new product comes along.

MS has decided to screw people (whatever the reason I don't care, this is an unilateral decision that suits this company but not necessarily the public that they are supposed to serve, how many I don't care, if the person affected is you it will be a cold comfort to know you are the only one affected) and there still be clueless /.ers and people in the computing world defending MS's pseudo "open" format that they are trying to spoon fed into us by means less than palatable (and here I look at you Miguel de Icaza, who should know better, alleged technical brilliance should not be enough to endorse a technical specification of any kind).

Hmmm... I'm not sure so sure about that

[ta bu shi da yu]

What I'm hoping is that they release the standard, and everyone becomes reliant on the standard. Then when they release a new standard, there is a great body of work that relies on their standard (flawed as it is) and this prevents them from creating any more proprietary formats.

ROF,LMFAO

[Grampaw Willie]

"less secure"

Ms preaching security? What a joke.

any foo knows this is forced obsolescence in a BS wrapper

good job jotaeleemeese

[Grampaw Willie]

I'm a confirmed member of the the resistance myself.

I always use .rtf format unless someone demands .doc and I can't think of the last time that happened

now in the .xls format, well that's more of a "SOL"

Where's Borland's Quattro Pro when we need it?

Re:good job jotaeleemeese

[Marcion]

>now in the .xls format, well that's more of a "SOL"

Not sure what you mean by SOL; but you can save spreadsheet data as .csv. For Excel users it will just open in Excel and they won't notice much difference. For everyone else, CSV is a light text-based format.

Of course, you lose formatting, but I personally believe formatting should be stored separately from data.

Re:good job jotaeleemeese

[KillerBob]

SOL = Shit Outta Luck.

Re:good job jotaeleemeese

[PitaBred]

You also lose any formatting. Excel doesn't just store data... you could do that in tables in Word.

Re:good job jotaeleemeese

[PitaBred]

Damnit, I meant to hit preview... I meant to say that you also lose any FORMULAS AND formatting. Which are quite important to most Excel users who do more than keep Christmas card lists in it.

Re:good job jotaeleemeese

[Marcion]

True, True.

Although I think that like formatting, logic should be stored separately from data too. I.e. I don't believe in, nor am I interested in spreadsheets in general, they are really inefficient tools from the 1980s that should die horribly as I have argued elsewhere.

Microsoft can't open 'insecure formats' securely?!

[skiman1979]

There's something seriously wrong with MS Office if it cannot open old file formats in a secure manner. It should be simple, especially for a project with such a huge profit margin, to disable macros, strip out anything that might be executable, and just display the text of an old document. Insecurity is in the software code, not the file format. I'm sure OpenOffice and KOffice and the like can open these securely, or can be made to at least. Maybe next Microsoft will disable support for .txt files and remove notepad from the OS?

less secure format ..

[rs232]

" you can download an MMC snap in and adjust the settings within group policy. I dont think thats extremely complex?"

What's a 'snap in', is it just another name for a patch or bits left out of the original PRODUC~1 ?

"Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall the operating system"

How can a file format be 'less secure', does that mean 'Office 2003' is only secure with the newest format. Less secure refers to 'Office 2003' and not the data files. What happens if someone deliberatly sends me a corrupted file using one of the old bugs. Does that mean that 'Office 2003' is rife with old bugs ready to be exploited? was: Re:"mind-bogglingly complex workaround"

Re:less secure format ..

[tnhtnh]

What's a 'snap in', is it just another name for a patch or bits left out of the original PRODUC~1 ? Yes

How can a file format be 'less secure' You will need to ask the authors of the file format that

since Microsoft is the only one in charge of MS Of

[Grampaw Willie]

uuuuuuh, not so fast, Pard Ms IS a monopoly -- and we all know this, even though the gov't whimped out ( how much did that round of golf with Bubba cost ? ) on the trust busting case now is Ms is a gov't monopoly we need gov't regulations that alone ought to scare the Fear of the Blue Screen of Death into them softies

Re:More cheese with that whine?

[smittyoneeach]

No, the basis for complaint is valid.
You paid real cash money for something to work a certain way, and it did, until your proprietary-vendor overlord makes up some crappy reason for removing the functionality.
While the specific instance of removing support for ancient formats isn't likely to have too much catestrophic effect, the precedent is well worth bitching about.
The least Redmond could do is turn the converter code over to the public domain, so that, when the unforseen requirement to, say, compare ancient versions of Uncle Hezekiah's will suddenly crops up, people don't have to spend a ton of money to open a simple file.
Of course, there is the business model of having a stable of ancient computers with creaky Windows versions and applications, just for these moments, but that business is so boring as to be hideously expensive.

It's not even executable data ..

[rs232]

It's is executable actually, at least with the help of the built in interpreter, designed to allow easy exchange of data between the various MS applications. Unfortunatly it's only as secure as Windows. That's how someone can email you a msWord attachment, which, on opening, installs a keylogger and emails itself to everyone in your address book.

was: Re:Mod parent up!

Sure Open Office Never Has Such Problems (NOT!)

[SerpentMage]

>> http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2006-2199.html

>> A security vulnerability related to OpenOffice.org documents may allow certain Java applets to break through the "sandbox" and therefore have full access to system resources with current user privileges. The offending Applets may be constructed to destroy/replace files, read or send private data, and/or cause additional security issues.

Cool... Sure this bug is from 2006. BUT, look at the workaround. Disable the software, and in the future?

>> With the updated versions for OpenOffice.org, support for Java applets in OpenOffice.org will be disabled.

I am not saying the OpenOffice is worse than Microsoft Office. What I am saying is that the problems Microsoft has, OpenOffice has as well. The big difference is that people shut their eyes to the problems outside the Microsoft world.

Re:Sure Open Office Never Has Such Problems (NOT!)

[PitaBred]

That's just shutting off certain things the software does that might be dangerous with older formats, or even new formats. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR. Not the wholesale "you just can't open this document" tack that Microsoft has taken. Reading comprehension is a must in our information-based current society... please try to keep up.

Re:More cheese with that whine?

[blind monkey 3]

It seems that just because it is Microsoft you're whining about people objecting to losing functionality , I hope people object regardless of whether it is Microsoft or Apple or Linux if functionality is removed without consent or choice (I do appreciate it is not as easy to have that happen with the open source model, one of it's strengths - and yes, it does have weaknesses too).

How I spent my Christmas vacation

[Dunkirk]

I just pulled the documents from my old Commodore 64 floppies. I bought an XA1541 cable, and used "opencbm" to transfer the disk images to my hard drive. Then I used "vice" to run the programs I used to use to create them (GEOS and WordWriter, for the curious). Then I could either print the output to a virtual printer or save the file to a virtual floppy, and then run `petcat' on the results to clean them up a bit. Then I concatenated the various little files into a single file, and used vim to sanitize the mess. Finally, I brought the text files into OpenOffice and formatted them. I saved all the interesting programs I wrote, a 37-page treatise on a new, sci-fi role playing game I invented (just the skeleton), and a 53-page high-level AD&D module I wrote (mostly done).

These things will obviously mean nothing to anyone but me, but the exercise was fun, mentally-stimulating, and ultimately rewarding to see what I had been doing with "my computer" 15-20 years ago. I could have lived without any of it, but I'm really glad I did it, even though getting all of this done took several days of work.

I think everyone can understand the situation I'm in here, because, hey, the old Commodore company went out of business, and the world standardized on PC's. I can accept that. What I can't accept is that one of the world's most profitable companies unilaterally decides that they'll stop supporting old document formats with no warning and no friendly workaround. I suspect the only people that this will affect will find themselves in the same situation I was in, and their only recourse will be to find an old PC, load it up with old versions of Windows and Office, and make the transition.

You would be tempted to think that there wouldn't be too many people in this situation, and you're probably right, but I think my father-in-law, who is an attorney, still has his secretaries creating their documents in Word Perfect, simply because they have a lot of templates created with it. If, down the road, they decide to "upgrade" to Office, I wonder if they'll suddenly find themselves in a pinch...

City of Chesapeake, VA may consider OO.o

[Anonymous Coward]

On a progressive note, the City of Chesapeake, VA may consider OO.o or Star Office as a replacement for MS Office. While ostensibly a money-saving measure, this allows them continued access to all their old documents as well as easy access to ODF going forward. What's not to like? Seems like a no-brainer decision to me.

The GP was spot on

[aepervius]

Since microsoft make format going obsolescent, it certainly point to it that people wanting to use electronic documentation for anything not ephemeral (aka: for years) need to be prepared to use an open document format (or simple text without formating). In other word decoupling the format from the software.

printing is not the solution...

[Anne Honime]

...unless you do it professionnaly on acid and bleach free paper, with real ink. Laser toner won't stick to paper for more than 10 ~ 15 years, after that it begings to turn back to powder. Thermal (old fax) paper is worse, inkjet printers are marginaly better but don't expect anything to last over 30 years with home and office printing technologies.

Re:printing is not the solution...

[russotto]

..unless you do it professionnaly on acid and bleach free paper, with real ink. Laser toner won't stick to paper for more than 10 ~ 15 years, after that it begings to turn back to powder. Thermal (old fax) paper is worse, inkjet printers are marginaly better but don't expect anything to last over 30 years with home and office printing technologies.

I have plenty of laser-printed documents older than that, with no sign of deterioration.

Dot matrix impact printed documents should last a good long time as well.

Re:printing is not the solution...

[Anne Honime]

I have plenty of laser-printed documents older than that, with no sign of deterioration.

Me too. Of course, there's no time bomb. Many documents are fine. But I have also seen many already badly deteriorated. The thing is you can't make an accurate prediction at the time of printing. And as far as archival goes, you can't predict what will be needed in the future (that's the purpose of archiving). So basically, you're making a bet, and that's not good.

Dot matrix impact printed documents should last a good long time as well.

Funnily enough, I had to go through a heap of pyjama-striped paper not long ago. I'm not that confident anymore. I noticed the ink had turned very pale, and some pages were barely readable.

Re:printing is not the solution...

[russotto]

Funnily enough, I had to go through a heap of pyjama-striped paper not long ago. I'm not that confident anymore. I noticed the ink had turned very pale, and some pages were barely readable.

Are you sure it wasn't that pale to begin with?

Anyway, the thing about the impact printed stuff is that even if the ink fades away completely, the information will almost certainly be recoverable with some effort, because of the compression of the paper fibers. Doesn't help you if the paper deteriorates of course.

Is it security or...

[rcastro0]

...or is it a subtle signal to people who are considering whether or not to move forward in the versions-ladder? Remember that they just disconnected functioning code in a perfectly stable version. It might have taken them *less* work to keep it in than to take it out. It would certainly save some of their users a lot of work.

It seems to me that parsers to older file formats are done once developed. Unless one wants to improve them, support that last unmapped table format, there is no reason not to keep them as they are. The parser code needn't necessarily change because new formats came up. It can just cascade. If you had a parser to move from Word 5.0 to Word 97 and you then introduce Word XP, just chain them:

ParserWordXP ( ParserWord97 (Word5.0.doc))

Since most modern formats are (generally) supersets of the older formats, this will not cause excessive trouble.

Easy work around?

[usurper_ii]

These are files that people probably aren't dealing with on a daily basis, or they would be in a newer format. My thought would be to install a copy of Office 2000 on something and use it to access legacy formats and/or start converting them. And Office 2000 didn't even require product activation, so the screwing can go both ways on this deal, really.

Usurper_ii

Easy Fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Copy the stuff between -------- into a plain text file, name it something ending in .reg, double-click and type OK.
Nothing magic: it just enters all the stuff from their KB article for you.

I believe this is correct, but I might have made a typo, who knows? MS might have made a mistake too, but it seems to work here, though I don't have the new update to try with. (You wouldn't run a .reg file without checking the contents, tight?)

Anonymous because I can't afford to tick MS off.

----------------------

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\Excel\Security\FileOpenBlock]
"LotusandQuattroFiles"=dword:00000000
"DifandSylkFiles"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\PowerPoint\Security\FileOpenBlock]
"FilesBeforePowerPoint97"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Office\11.0\PowerPoint\Security\FileSaveBlock]
"Converters"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\Word\Security\FileOpenBlock]
"FilesBeforeVersion"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Shared Tools\Graphics Filters\Import\CDR]
"Enabled"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Office\11.0\Excel\Security\FileOpenBlock]
"LotusandQuattroFiles"=dword:00000000
"DifandSylkFiles"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\PowerPoint\Security\FileOpenBlock]
"FilesBeforePowerPoint97"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\PowerPoint\Security\FileSaveBlock]
"Converters"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\Word\Security\FileOpenBlock]
"FilesBeforeVersion"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Shared Tools\Graphics Filters\Import\CDR]
"Enabled"=dword:00000001

----------------------

Re:27 Billion USELESS Gigabytes 2 b Archived by 20

[domatic]

If you still have one of your old Commodore 64 disk drives then you can cable the drive to your PC and create images of the C-64 disks and use them in an emulator.

http://sta.c64.org/xcables.html

There are options for your Amiga floppies as well:

http://www.amigaforever.com/kb/3-118.html

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

no support

[azazrael]

Does anyone recall all the moaning about how old data was hard to keep around. What do we do with reel to reel tape and old cds etc. So you need to keep old files on current media With this typical microsoft improvement even if you can access the media you have to have a machine running the program that was used to write it - for simple office documents!!!!!!!!!!!

Training?

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally, they did this by default, and then documented a mind-bogglingly complex workaround (KB 938810) rather than providing a user interface for adjusting it, or even a set of awkward 'Do you really want to do this?' dialog boxes to click through.

Hey, they just want to give Windows users a taste of life on Linux!

You've got the three 'E's wrong.

[GameboyRMH]

It's Extend, Embrace, Extinguish; not Extend, Embrace, Expand. You've either got your three 'E's wrong or you're confusing MS with Google.

it's not like it's YOUR data or anything

[toby]

Data obsolescence is a huge problem. MS doesn't give a damn, their business model is to sit between you and your data. (OOXML versus ODF.)

Apple also did something like this (or worse) when they EOL'd Classic in Leopard. Millions of files become inaccessible overnight because the applications to read them simply cannot be run. It's thoughtless and cynical and extremely destructive.

The summary is not alarmist. Data obsolescence happens every day. It's a fatal flaw in the proprietary software model that RMS correctly identified decades ago.

Re:it's not like it's YOUR data or anything

[Capt. Cautious]

First: if I create it for myself, not for profit, I own that data. The courts have already gone through that. Second: This is one more excellent example of why the ODF format was created and why M$ is trying so hard to subvert it. Third: M$ - Duh, OOXML Phew!

Re:it's not like it's YOUR data or anything

[stewbacca]

Apple also did something like this (or worse) when they EOL'd Classic in Leopard. Millions of files become inaccessible overnight because the applications to read them simply cannot be run. It's thoughtless and cynical and extremely destructive.

Why not keep 10.5 on an older Mac so as to keep your Classic data? You've gotta move on eventually. Isn't 5 years or so enough time to stop supporting an old format that a very small percentage of users rely on? I'm actually going to put OS 9 back on my 8 year old G4, but only for nostalgia's sake.

Re:it's not like it's YOUR data or anything

[Ash-Fox]

Why not keep 10.5 on an older Mac so as to keep your Classic data?

I'm not sure, but was classic support removed from 10.5 on the PPC version (I haven't checked)?

You've gotta move on eventually. Isn't 5 years or so enough time to stop supporting an old format that a very small percentage of users rely on?

People need to access older information apparently and it isn't always possible to convert that data properly to a new format.

However, being unable to upgrade the OS presents new issues where it is difficult to do actions like copying the data needed from one program to another, since the new program only runs on a newer version of the OS etc.

That said, there are programs like Mini vMac, Basilisk II and SheepShaver...

Yawn

[Macthorpe]

People with more intelligence than you have tried to accuse me of being a shill.

Care to answer my point are you content to just name-call?

They just don't get it.

[jbrandv]

So, let me get this straight. They are now forcing us to use OpenOffice to read their formats. I guess that Balmer just got tired of using their own crappy software.

Office 2007

[pdragon04]

Does anyone know how Office 2007 handles these disabled file formats? Is this "feature" already built into it from the start and, if so, does this workaround work for it as well?

I thought back/forward compatibility

[Ralph Spoilsport]

was why windows was so important. I remember when Apple went from 68k to PPC, and MS FUD was "See? Do you really think any of that is going to work in 2 years? Hmmmm????" And, they were right. Remember all those CD-ROM "Multimedia" titles from the early 1990s? Try and run them today - "Sorry, but QuickTime no longer supports..."

So, I swallowed the losses. Such is life. But I did envy MS's self-compatibility. I remember helping a friend's business modernise their systems, and they had Lotus123 files on an old 386. We were able to get these files from 1983 into his Win2k machine, and use them. It wasn't exactly straightforward, but we didn't have to dick with the registry, fer chrissakes... This really is a low blow, and it is an example of MS cutting the limb its sitting on.

IT's like MS and the RIAA - they're giving us fewer and fewer reasons to bother with them.

RS

Re:I thought back/forward compatibility

[stewbacca]

I remember when Apple went from 68k to PPC, and MS FUD was "See? Do you really think any of that is going to work in 2 years? Hmmmm????" And, they were right.

Can you please explain how they were right? My 68k machines chugged along for a couple more years. They became obsolete because of the cpu speed explosions and changes in video/harddrive/networking/motherboard technologies, not because of software backwards compatibility. Apple kind of has a pretty good track record of making major changes without leaving the old users in the dust (68k --> Power PC --> OS9 --> OSX --> Motorola/IBM chips --> Intel, etc.)

The Apple transitions have not been without their glitches, but they have not sacrificed progress in the name of backwards compatibility. At some point, you have to cut your losses, dump the old and start from scratch; something Microsoft is seemingly unwilling to do.

Security and Access Are Not Mutually Exclusive

[stewbacca]

At first, I read this as a simple mistake and this little bug would be fixed quickly. Then I read that Microsoft did this intentionally. Why am I not surprised? I'm all for security, but not at the expense of not being able to access my documents. Besides, why should accessing my document and security be mutually exclusive? I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but at every turn, they let me down.

To all the MS Fanboy's...

[Anonymous Coward]

that suggest there aren't many of those documents left, or that there are tools to do it - I call BS.

I've worked on projects that span more than a semester, sometimes over a decade. Older versions of documentation, requirements, specifications, etc are required to be readable. This arbitratry crippling of functionality is not going to go over well.

If I bought MS Word to read/write/print those documents, and now they are breaking it - you should demand a refund. That's not what you bought.

And for those that suggest the solution is to "convert" the document - then I would suggest that you go ahead and convert to Open Document now. Most Open Document capable software can still read these abandoned MS types (i.e. hasn't been crippled for security reasons), and your investment will be protected by a cross-platform, ISO Standard, multiple-vendor supported documentation format - that will still be readable for years into the future.

All my documentation is done in Open Office, and there's no reason to go back to any proprietary format.

Re:Adobe

[KingBozo]

Adobe is much worse than MS when it comes to upgrading. Just look at Photoshop and their camera raw converters, as soon as a new version of Photoshop is out, the older ones don't get the converters for new cameras that come out, they force you to upgrade to the latest version of Photoshop if you want support for your new camera.

Tell me that isn't trying to force peoples hands to upgrade.

Dave

Classic was EOLed with the Intel switch

[argent]

They EOLed Classic with the switch to Intel, actually.

Because Classic requires a Power PC (or a 68000). I guess they decided two layers of emulation (CPU and OS) was too much to keep synchronized.

There are PPC emulators that will boot Mac OS 9 to keep access to those older files alive.

Open source software is not a universal preventative against data obsolescence, either. What keeps formats alive is continued support. Open source makes that easier, or at least makes it independent of a single company so you can take over if you need it, but there's plenty of old open source software that's basically rotted or been lost, where emulation of the old hardware is still by far the easiest way to access data files.

Re:Classic was EOLed with the Intel switch

[toddestan]

They EOLed Classic with the switch to Intel, actually.

Because Classic requires a Power PC (or a 68000). I guess they decided two layers of emulation (CPU and OS) was too much to keep synchronized.

Actually, he's right. You're right that they never bothered with Classic on the Intel machines, but it was still supported on Tiger for the PPC Macs. However, in Leopard there is no support for Classic on either platform.

Retarded as Killing "Text with Layout"

[Carcass666]

This is as stupid as the decision of Microsoft to not include support for the "Text With Layout" in Word 2003. There are, as with most Microsoft products, registry hacks that may or may not let you get away using the text with layout converter that came with Word 2000 - I have had mixed success depending on the installation. There are other workarounds that involve printing from the Generic Text Printer (but you are on your own to remove unwanted intra-page blank lines from margins) and other such contortions.

IMHO, it seems that after Word 2000 (some would argue 97) that Microsoft forgot that Word was supposed to be more of a word processor than a desktop publishing application or a showcase for the latest GUI "innovations" their labs came up with.

As far as security goes, there is no argument being made that the file conversions themselves are insecure - only that Microsoft has chosen not to sign the conversion libraries (something that isn't hard to do at all). Publishing a bunch of registry hacks because your deployment team can't take the 30 minutes to sign these libraries is stupid. If Microsoft really was worried about security, all they would need to do is to add on option, enabled by default, to remove all OLE/ActiveX context from all documents in a non-supported legacy format.

This is about bad architecture decisions and laziness - it has nothing to do with security.

Microsoft pushing users towards Open Office.

[tamrood]

Clearly, we are expected to apply the simplest available workaround: Open Office will continue to operate with the disabled file formats, just fine. Anyone that still needs to work with files that old, is just an encumbrance to Bill and Steve's Brave New World anyway, and not the kind of customer that the marketing department wants to keep.

Re:Software Nanny you say!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The infection is everywhere. Note the utterly pointless finger breaking exercise in the Nautilus file manager: If a file extension does not match the file content exactly, no amount of user configuration will make Nautilus open it without manually selecting the program every time. That adds a step every time any Nautilus user opens a .jpg or .mp3 file. For no reason. It's just "security theater".

Last time I checked, this malfeature was rated as a medium severity "bug", but it is not: Things were set up that way on purpose, maybe by someone who needed something to point to and say, "See, Linux just doesn't work on the desktop."

ZIP is an open format

[DrYak]

2) ZIP (tm) is widely used by countless libs and apps, and decompression has been reverse engineered, open sourced, dissected, inspected, and neglected (Apologies to Arlo Guthry) to death.

ZIP has not been reverse engineered, for the simple reason that from day 1 it ZIP has been an open format.
I still have some floppy laying around with early version of the software which included a complete documentation of the format. Documentation of the containers, and the various compression algorithme that where available back then up to Shrink/Expand (The modern Deflate/Inflate weren't introduced yet back then).

Anyone wishing could back then re-implement ZIP support into his/her own code.

Which in itself is one additional argument showing why trusting Microsoft formats is bad.

Today, they just removed support for archaeologically-old formats. How long until someone in a marketing department in Redmond decides it would be a brilliant idea to remove support in current DOC/PPT/XLS format in order to force people to move to OOXML formats ?

Re:ZIP is an open format

[Anonymous Coward]

That article you linked says that Katz only released the docs for ZIP in 1999.

PKZip is 10 years older than that. So how was it an open format 'from day 1'?

Re:ZIP is an open format

[Sproggit]

I stand corrected.

Thank you for your input, seriously.

Thank you infinitely more for re-inforcing my point :)

The Sproggg

Re:ZIP is an open format

[Zenki]

PKZIP's first official version was 1.10 if I remember correctly. It included a file called appnote.txt that detailed the header, decompression algorithms, and the "encryption" algorithm used. Just search for pkz110.exe and unzip it. The timestamp is 3/15/1990.

appnote.txt was updated with later releases.

Won't work anyway.

[Spy der Mann]

It's like giving a zombie vaccine to the people in a little town surrounded by cities... without the vaccine.

What use is disabling use of old formats supposedly vulnerable to viruses, if most of the botnets are in countries where machines run older copies of Windows and will NEVER be updated?

Hummm

[BuGaLoU]

Not to be an MS fanboy, I use whatever works, but I do not see what all the ruckus is about. First of, since Open Office is so much better, why does this even apply to people posting comments? It baffles me how many people waste so much time and energy posting anti-MS comments and filling up the front page with Anti-MS rhetoric. If you don't like the company don't but their products and STFU! I hate IE, so I use Firefox. End of story. This doesn't mean I'm not on some crusade to force Firefox on everyone else, and submit anti IE stories on news sites. I'm not going to post the same old tired comments over and over and over again. About the article, if you are using such old versions of documents, install an older version of Office, problem solved. If you want to use newer versions of office, convert those very old documents to a newer version. Any company with a decent IT department can get their people to script the whole deal and have the documents converted in a days time. Think that solution is garbage? Install Open Office! No nevermind, lets just all post "fight The Man" comments on slashdot.

What about my Sierra On Line Home Word Documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about my Sierra On Line Home Word Documents?

Not the current Sierra On-line, the old Sierra On Line

For Opening Older Formats...

[alteran]

How is using a different file format helping me to read older formats?

.. use OpenOffice. You don't even have to leave the comforting confines of Windows.
As far as I can tell, this patch only stops MS Office from opening these files, not anything else.

Re:For Opening Older Formats...

[OhHellWithIt]

Unfortunately, OpenOffice can't cure everything. The version of OpenOffice that shipped with Debian "Etch" cannot open documents that I created with the OpenOffice version in "Sarge". I haven't had time to research alternatives, but it was not something that made me happy, especially when I discovered it about six months after the upgrade.

To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't they made some ridiculously insecure file formats in the past? I seem to recall that the WMF hole happened because the files contain executable code for some ridiculous reason...

Mind you, I don't know that I'm buying their story, but whatever. If it drives more people to OO.o, so much the better.

Re:To be fair...

[ta bu shi da yu]

Haven't they made some ridiculously insecure file formats in the past? I seem to recall that the WMF hole happened because the files contain executable code for some ridiculous reason...

Which they patched very quickly - you can still open WMF files with the exploit, it won't do anything now. As the garndparent poster stated, there are no insecure file formats, just insecure implementations.

Typicall bs

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical bullshit article for slashdot, exactly the correct kind to get all "anti-microsoft" zealots out and whine about something that is not true in any case. This gentlemen is FUD.

Re:Typicall bs

[Carcass666]

Ok, I'll bite. I don't see how this is FUD.

I don't think anybody fears this as much as is annoyed by it.

There is no uncertainty about it, there is a Microsoft-published knowledge base article

I'll give you doubt - as to I doubt whether it's a good idea to require registry editing (or group policies) to keep in place existing functionality,

Re:Adobe

[SparkEE]

That isn't trying to force peoples hands to upgrade.

You're talking about the complete opposite thing here. It actually makes sense that you have to upgrade your software for new hardware support. Your complaint seems to be that the upgrades are not free?

It would be more analogous if new versions of Photoshop didn't support older cameras that previous Photoshop versions supported. I don't know if that's the case. I doubt it is.

Still silly for me(us) to run around

[Tran]

to change the registry for 20+ users.

Re:More cheese with that whine?

[billcopc]

S'funny, I do that with virtual machines. It's essentially "free", except for a few gigs of disk per instance. When you work in any sort of development or hosting environment, legacy apps and documents need to be a part of your workflow - there's just no way to avoid them.

I'm laughing so hard ...

[PPH]

... I almost shit myself.

We (engineering) have (fruitlessly) argued with our IT department over the wisdom of archiving documentation as required by FAA regulations in proprietary formats.

The company already ran afoul of this reg many years ago. Fortunately (for the IT folks), the finding was that the violation was unintentional and as a result, the company was only assessed civil penalties and required to take corrective action. The IT department solution was to convert this documentation _up_to_ Office 2K formats. This despite the warnings that we were going to get bit by the retirement of compatible s/w again.

Now, in the face of documented warnings, this violation may found to be willful and as such it may be found to be a felony. I hope the IT guys don't get Internet access in their cells.

Re:More cheese with that whine?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we have to forgive them a bit. After all, 99.9999% of Slashdotters have never held actual IT jobs, and are thus totally unaware of how IT already routinely deals with legacy application issues. The world outside mom & dad's basement or garage is a whole lot different.

There's no "upgrade treadmill"... since we can probably assume that organization which allegedly has thousands of Word docs archived also owns a licensed copy of MS Word. So the solution is simply to have the application installed somewhere, and when a person needs to access the doc, they can open it up in that version of Word... and even save it in a newer format if needed.

See? Problem solved, no shrill puling FOSSie whine necessary. Just another day in the life of a real IT support staff. This which tie Slashdotters in a knot of tears and pulled out hair are things real IT support people can accomplish without even thinking about it.

I wonder

[taustin]

I wonder if anybody has ever assembled a list of "updates" like this - ones where the recommended solution from Microsoft is to buy more Microsoft product - and compared it to major releases that have been financially disappointing.

In other words, I can't help but notice this comes very shortly after Vista bombed.

Re:Software Nanny you say!?

[PitaBred]

And people wonder why there are so many people that use KDE even though Gnome is the "standard" on so many desktops.

Precedent?

[hadaso]

> ... the precedent is well worth bitching about.

I have an original WIN98 disk, and everything that came with it, including the original PC it came own. Several years ago I had to reformat the HD and reinstall WIN98. It was not the first time I did it. After instalation the usual thing to do is to install all the available security updates. The way they designed WIN98 is that there was an "automatic update" feature that did it. It was advertised as an important element in the OS. However when MS stopped supporting this OS they not only stopped providing new updates, security or no. They also removed all the old ones from the automatic updates site, replacing the functionality with a message that says they no longer support this product. So you're stuck with the original 1998 that cannot be updated with all the security updates that were produced until they dropped support. Well... it's not that you cannot get the updates: you can download all the hundreds of updates produced over the years as individual files, then manually install them one by one, if you know what you're doing. So I thought there must be a way to get all of them bundled in one file. I called M$. I was identified as their customer (I did send in the registration card: the one that said "Do you want to know who the most important person is at microsoft? (flip page) It you! The customer!") Well, I was on file, they know I have WIN98, they don't have any other way to provide the udates to WIN98 except by hundreds of individual files, but they offered to sell me an upgrade to WinXP for the full price.

So this is certainly not the first time they remove functionality from their products. They could leave the WIN98 update site in the state it was on the last day they still supported the product. Or they could pack all the updated so one could get them in one installer file if one needed to reinstall the OS. They chose to remove the automatic update functionality and push anyone who needs to reinstall to original 1998 version with no updates (except for a few made manually if one really needs them).

I didn't get XP for that machine. It was not strong enough for XP, and I saw no reason to pay for an OS that would eventually be made dysfunctional by the vendor who believes that end of support means also removal of all past updates. I have WIN98 partially installed on that PC. "partially" means the OS is installed, but no drivers and no apps are. Like all Windows installations several hours of shoving various vendor CDs in and out are needed to make it useful, and puting in a lightweight liveCDE Linux distro takes much less time ...

Office 2003 Disservice Pack

[The Steven]

When I was young, I had a lemonaide stand. I sold everybody two glasses. The first glass for $.50 and the second glass for $5.00.
The second glass contained the antidote.

I can imagine M$ selling an Office Add-On that will be able to recognize "any" file format and translate said file to the format used current version of the M$ program that does "the same thing".

Quattro files converted to Money, Visicalc and Multiplan to Excel, Wordstar and PFS:Write to Word, Q&A to Access, and Autocad to Paint. If you don't already have the M$ program, it will still convert the file for you, delete the original, and print you a $5.00 coupon for the purchase of the previous version of the program.

Sure, everyone will be happy, and in Soviet Russia, programs will run you.

Give me a break

[JustASlashDotGuy]

...documented a mind-bogglingly complex workaround ...

So, it appears that in order to re-enable Office to open older formats, you need to do nothing more than make a single registry change for each product? Is there anyone on this entire site that honestly find making a registry change to be mind-bogglingly complex?

When I first read the summary, I thought to myself "oh no.. this may be something I need to alert the IT dept to". However, now I see it as just a non-issue. If/When this does become an issue, pushing out a script that changes a mind-bogglingly 5 registry keys will take all of 30 seconds.

However, I will considering going to my boss and saying "Sir... we have two options. We can either change 5 registry keys... or deploy open office across the firm and retrain everyone accordingly.". I'll let you know what he says.

Yes, I do believe MS should make the option to enable older formats something you could enable/disable via the 'options' menu, yet I do not believe it's worth all the hype it's getting here. Typical Slashdot unfortunately.

On a side note, I find it interesting that this limitation was put into Office 2003 and not 2007 (to my knowledge). It makes me wonder as to if the same change will be put into 2007, or if 2007 may not be as vulnerable as 2003 (hence the limitation isn't needed). Does anyone have any ideas about this?

No, Word for Mac is not blocked

[LionMage]

Intrestingly enough, it looks like this update blocks ALL versions of files saved by Word for the Mac. It even blocks the most current version of Word for the Mac, Word 2004 for Mac.

I'm shocked that nobody else checked TFA to verify your claims; even more shocked that you got modded +5 Informative when your comments are actually factually false.

According to the Knowledgebase article:

Double-click the FilesBeforeVersion registry entry, and then type the value in the Value data box that corresponds to one of the values in the following table.

For example, the default value of this entry is set to "Word 6.0 for Windows" or "101." This setting means that all Word documents that were created in Word 1.x for Windows through Word 2.x for Windows Taiwan are blocked from opening. You can increase or decrease the default version. The versions that are specified in the list are in ascending order.

(Emphasis added by me.) Now, if you look at the provided handy table of values, you see that the two versions of MS Word for Mac that are directly compatible with OS X, registry values 195 and 268 (for Word X for Mac, and Word 2004 for Mac, respectively) are below the default cut-off on the table. In fact, even Word 98 for the Mac (which can only run on OS X in Classic) falls below the cut-off on the table. Only products with corresponding values from the table numerically below 101 (those appearing above the cut-off line in the table) will be blocked.

Since Office 2004 for Mac is still a supported product, it would be insane for Microsoft to block its files from being loaded in the Windows version of Office. I admit these instructions are confusing, but the KBase article clearly does not say what you claim it is saying.

Incidentally, according to the table and the above quoted text, the only Mac Word document formats that are blocked by default in this service pack are the following:

• Word 4.x for Macintosh
• Word 5.x for Macintosh

And that's it. Even Word 6 for Mac isn't blocked, because it falls after the magic cut-off.

Re:No, Word for Mac is not blocked

[Graff]

LionMage:

I'm shocked that nobody else checked TFA to verify your claims; even more shocked that you got modded +5 Informative when your comments are actually factually false. Actually it looks like I'm victim of the "mind-bogglingly complex workaround" that the summary talked about. I misread the table and thought that you had to put in each value listed there to allow a specific blocked format, rather than putting in a value and all the lower values were automatically included.

But hey, at least I ATTEMPTED to RTFA! :)

I take it back, it's unreasonable

[LuckyLuke58]

You're absolutely right, it is NOT reasonable for MS to break these formats - I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that, it was late, I was tired etc., had a beer or two in me, and hadn't thought it through properly.

Only microsoft can do it!!

[listen_to_blogs]

This is unbelievable. If Microsoft didn't have the office monopoly, I doubt they would have made it default. Does anyone here use any online office solutions?? listen_to_slashdot

OpenOffice Works

[dturpin]

I came across one of these files today at work. After looking at the lengthy Microsoft KB I tried Open Office and the file opened fine... I know this makes sense because OO didn't sabotage legacy files. Just wanted to let folks know.

Mac compatibility out the window?

[mrpostal]

I think i've found something far more disturbing reading the ms KB article,

under the list of formats that you can selectively unblock by setting windows registry keys (yes, this will be VERY administratively friendly, don't let the user do this, don't let the IT dept be able to write an easy 'howto' :S ) it quietly says "Word 2004 for Macintosh".

what the fuck? office 2008 for mac isn't even RELEASED yet, it will be in a couple of days. Shock horror, mac users getting the shaft again.

there goes the productivity between PC/Mac integrated networks.

why do I have the feeling admins are just going to nullify this for ease of use and set the registry key to 0?

how many attack vectors are there for ancient formats? and even if there are loads, wouldn't they be well documented by now, and any decent admin would be running a virus scanner if they use windows?

gahhh.

Re: Blocked File Format

[dave87656]

So, MS is blocking you from reading your own data. Nice.

Somebody is not thinking

[randyjg]

One of Microsofts problems is that, for most users, there is no reason to upgrade from Office 2000 and WIndows XP. It is understandable that they would want to provide a reason. This, however, is exactly NOT it.

Given record retention laws, and the recency of documents in earlier formats, I think Microsoft has now made it ILLEGAL to upgrade, since the records will be effectively lost if they are unreadable.

More importantly, many third party providers of documents, for example, small businesses, only HAVE the earlier formats. Is Microsoft really expecting large companies to cut off tens of thousands of thier suppliers and millions of thier customers in order to upgrade?

And, of course, Adobe has this golden opportunity. Microsoft and Adobe are at war as much as Microsoft and Google, if not more. Google is just a threat to expansion, with one move, Adobe threatens to turn Microsofts cash cow into hamburger patties.

Here is what they should do. Adobe should help openoffice.org come up with a true, full PDF importer so businesses can then replace Microsoft Word with PDF as the storage format of choice.

This will strike at the heart of Microsoft in a way anything Google could do would not. It will also give an enormous boost to their Acrobat family of backend servers, and, with the proper tie ins, their Creative Studio line, as well.

More importantly, it will hit Microsoft share prices like an atomic bomb, as analysts start worrying about Microsoft's cash flow with limited new sales of Office. Added to the Vista woes, and something more than chairs will thrown in the Microsoft executive offices.

Microsoft admits Office 2003 'mistake'

[Tranzistors]

It seems Microsoft has admitted the mistake. Sadly, the reaction is not security update.

Microsoft updated the advisory on Friday evening and included links to four downloadable updates that would unblock the file formats. One update was provided for each of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and CorelDraw file types.