Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Office 2007 to Support ODF - But Not OOXML
Andy Updegrove writes "About two hours ago, Microsoft announced that it will update Office 2007 to natively support ODF 1.1, but not to implement its own OOXML format. Not until Office 14 is released (no date given so far for that) will anyone be able to buy an OOXML ISO-compliant version. Why will Microsoft do this after so many years of refusal? Perhaps because the only way it can deliver a product to government customers that meets an ISO/IEC document format standard is by finally taking the plunge, and supporting 'that other format.' Still, many questions remain, such as when this upgrade will actually be released, how good a job it will do, and whether the API Microsoft has said it will make available to permit developers to supply 'save to ODF' default plugins will be supported by a patent non-assertion promise allowing implementations under the GPL (the upgrade supplied by Microsoft will not allow ODF as the default setting)."
So, in case anyone was still thinking that OOXML being confirmed as a standard wasn't a bad thing...
And as far as supporting ODF goes, I'd applaud Microsoft for taking a step in the right direction if they weren't constantly declaring themselves the victors over Open Source. I only wonder how they'll spin this.
A: No, because companies are already so deep with old .xls files and macros built for said files that they will still be unwilling to transition from Microsoft Office to StarOffice.
That, and StarOffice just doesn't feel polished compared to MSOffice.
I seriously think that the macros built around companies' documents & spreadsheets are what's keeping them locked in to MSOffice, not the file format, per se
And for all you OO.o fans out there, don't even bother getting started; StarOffice is essentially OO.o, but with better support for MSOffice formatted documents, plus it has better tools like its thesaurus. OO.o may be nice for you, but there's a reason why Sun can sell StarOffice, and it's not because Sun's evil, and it's not *just* about tech support.
They may be selling it like pancakes, but I have also seen an upsurge in dissatisfaction.
1) Why do I have to learn a new interface?
2) Why is user X not able to open my files. Why can't we open our shared files?
3) Why is our file corrupted.
This issue has become so great that department managers have been asking me if we can go to OpenOffice.
Current plan is to minimize purchases of systems with Office 2007 and switch to OO next year, after the new version with file sharing comes out.
He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
I think what matters most is that MS has committed itself to providing ODF compliance, even if that is a bit limited way, by the end of the first quarter of 2009.
This means that businesses who have been delaying the normal computer upgrade cycle (sometimes for years) now have a clear pathway: they can immediately migrate to OpenOffice under existing WinXP licenses on new hardware, or they can jump directly to an enterprise Linux with OpenOffice. Either way, they can move forward knowing that before they have finished the rollout, the documents they are producing will be compliant with the Microsoft universe.
The timing of this is great for the USA economy. It is much less costly to do a major rollout in a slack period, and we can count on slack for the rest of 2008. It will be easier to hire the needed tech support people, and if the rollout involves moving to Linux, it can be done with a lot less expense in hardware than the cost forecasts of even last year. The time and cost for retraining staff can be more easily absorbed during the competitive lull. Then when the economy gets back on track in 2009, these companies will be very well positioned for fast and strong growth.
I applaud Microsoft for biting the bullet and coming out with this news now. Perhaps now USA IT departments can get out of these doldrum eddies and start making headway again.
I know that the common perception on slashdot is that ODF is the only format we need because of its OO heritage. That is frankly a naïve position. The format was backed by IBM, Oracle and Sun for a reason. Right now MS' selling point for Office is features. Some would call it bloated - but MS Office still has more features than OO. That may not be that important to the vast majority of users, but it is a selling point nontheless.
Imagine a situation where MS could not leverage the feature advantage, because the standard persistence format could not represent the advanced feature set. Ink comes to mind; it's actually part of OXML but there's not anything like it in ODF. Representatives for Microsofts competitors could fight any extension (invoking the "err on side of caution" argument) of the format until OO/StarOffice was prepared to implement the feature as well. But that would actually stiffle innovation and hurt the customers who could actually realize a productivity gain from new features.
By creating a situation where we have two formats and already a situation where one is larger and with more features specified, Microsoft has got a situation where they can let the "conservatives" drive (or not) ODF, and Microsoft can be the primary driver of OXML, although they can now only make suggestions and requests. In short they have a situation where they stand a better chance at exposing the hidden agendas of their competitors representatives should they ever try to hold back Microsoft innovation in Office for compettitive reasons.
I don't believe for a second that the motives of IBM, Oracle and Sun were always free of hidden agendas. Of course they saw their involvement (and influence through merits) in ODF as a way to gain some control over the future of MS Office. Office has always been one of MS' best cash cows.
You can argue that we don't need any more innovation in the office productivity area. But that would be an opinion and not something you should base a standard upon.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Office is Microsoft's biggest-selling product by revenue, even more than Windows. Since governments are mandating open formats, Microsoft has no choice but to implement ODF if they want to keep selling those lucrative enterprise agreements. Getting OOXML approved as a standard format was a huge win for them to be sure, but governments could (and will) just as easily standardize on ODF, especially given all the problems with OOXML. Microsoft used to rely on file format lock-in as a sales tool, but it seems now compatibility and (gasp) quality are Microsoft's selling points for Office. They're doing what it takes to maintain those huge sales.
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
i don't think microsoft can risk it. picture what would happen, if they came out with a buggy and mangled implementation of odf. ibm, sun and goodle, not to mention the eu and the governments of so many other countries would rip them to shreds.
i'm not denying implementing odf is a bad decision in the eyes of the share-holders. announcing support for odf is however something subtly different. maybe microsoft's scared of repercussions because of the corruption in the standardisation process for ooxml.
The most people you speak of are the ones who buy Office one license at a time. A lot of people, to be sure, but Office makes its big bucks with the site purchases. At these places, there are gatekeepers who may have been alerted about the long-term costs of non-standard file formats (and may already be approving FOSS deployments) and will darn well drop the product from the approved list if the vendor is playing games.
But then, look at IE. It took some serious competition, in the form of Firefox, but IE finally did shape up and start adding features (tabs) and reasonable standards compliance.
All we really need, then, is an ACID test for ODF, in which we can show that OpenOffice, KOffice, Google Docs, and even isolated projects like AbiWord and Gnumeric do better than Office, thus shaming Microsoft into doing it right. That assumes they don't get it right the first time, although that does seem unlikely.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I've never once not been able to open my files with O2K7/8 or have had any problem sharing files.
Not a single corrupted file in many hours of use. The recovery system works fine in the event of a power outage or reboot without saving. I don't know where you're getting your data, but given my experience I'd say one of us is in the minority here. Given some of the other responses to your post I'm thinking it's you.