Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Office Web Will Do iPhone, Linux, Mac
CWmike writes "Gregg Keizer reports Microsoft has clarified that its upcoming Office Web service will be available to users running Mac OS X and Linux, as well as from Apple's iPhone. The key to this cross platform-friendliness: Office Web will run in Firefox and Safari browsers, in addition to IE. Introduced last month, Office Web is a lightweight version of its Office suite that runs as an online service. I think it's time for Google to embrace OpenOffice.org to take on Microsoft head-on, as CW blogger Preston Gralla has argued for and described how to go about it."
I think it's time for Google to embrace OpenOffice.org to take on Microsoft head-on, as CW blogger Preston Gralla has argued for and described how to go about it.
Doesn't this really depend on whether or not Google WANTS to compete head to head with Microsoft. You don't make business decisions out of spite.
"I think it's time for Google to embrace OpenOffice.org to take on Microsoft head-on, as CW blogger Preston Gralla has argued for and described how to go about it."
That would be a great idea, if your goal is to hurt Microsoft's sales rather than high quality office software. This is a good example of how two faced people can be. The leg the open source community stands on is improving the offerings in specific types of software, yet somehow lose sight of it, thinking that eliminating an option is in everyone's best interest.
Whale
as Outlook Web Access works in non-IE browsers..?! There is a reason you can select a 'Premium' version with IE and not with FF/Safari etc.
The key to Access is keeping what it is in perspective. Too many dopes out there are trying to turn Access into a catch-all solution and it wasn't developed that way. While it is crawling in that direction it's going to be a number of years before it ever bears any real fruit as something more than a low-end fast and dirty database appliance.
There's a reason that it's only part of the MS Office suite and not the MS Office suite in and of itself.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
The last time they said the same thing for DirectX...
Moonlight? yeah right... Assuming MS doesn't add Silverlight-only stuff as a requirement for their online office stuff, they will eventually do once it is famous enough. Thanks Miguel...
Google apps run in anything that can run javascript, does not require you to install .net or violate MS' patents and I am quite sure it will be more feature-complete and better implemented, this web stuff is definitely not MS' strength, they are still on that ridiculous windows-only obsession...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
If a PHB implemented a mission critical app in Access poorly, I understand your wrath.
But frequently a project or analysis needs more capabilities than Excel provides, and the project isn't yet seen as business critical, and the timeliness or expense of getting IT on it is prohibitive. Access shines in these instances where a non-IT person can do some rather sophisticated data acquisition and analysis.
If years later you get called in to detangle an Access database that through feature-and-scope-creep has turned into an important business tool that needs a higher level of reliability, take it as a triumph of the common man and modern software, and as your responsibility and privilege to elevate this application to the next level.
that's true. XmlHttpRequest is indeed something that Microsoft has done right and that we should thank them for. and i think it's one of the rare examples showing that Microsoft can be a positive contributor to the web community. so it might actually be a good thing that Microsoft is trying to get into mobile web services. since they do not control the mobile browser market and can't just make everyone switch to IE, this will force MS to keep cross-browser compatibility in mind when developing these advanced web apps.
and as most web developers know, cross browser compatibility is probably one of the most difficult/laborious aspects of web design/development. and the reason for this is largely due to MS's intransigent habit of flouting established open web standards in developing IE. most web browsers are fairly reasonable when it comes to W3C compliance, and it doesn't take much to get a complex layout or application to work across Opera, Firefox, Konquerer, and the majority of common browsers. but IE is always the single browser that requires endless tweaking and inconvenient CSS hacks to get a cross-browser compatible web page.
now that Microsoft has to deal with cross-browser compatibility issues themselves, perhaps they will finally realize the insanity that is caused by their inconsiderate development philosophy. instead of disregarding open web standards and then wasting thousands of man-hours to work around the inconsistencies in browser implementations that they themselves introduce, maybe--just maybe--they will stop being a poor corporate netizen and work with the W3C rather than against it.
Not sure where to start with this. There are many cases where MS Office runs like a turd and OO.org does not.
On the whole, MS Office is a superior product, but that doesn't mean there aren't areas in which OO.org does better, or that there aren't areas in which MS Office is a pure dung heap.
Word vs Writer: For me, this is a draw. Both packages do most of the same things equally well. Word has more (and more easily accessible) 'power' features, but it's something of a fool's errand to try and produce a complicated document in either.
At least with OO.org you have xml source to look at when the formatting goes awry. With MS Office, things seem to change on whim from system to system or depending on the phase of the moon, and there's no way to figure out what is happening or why (this is a common theme with all the MS Office apps).
As far as trouble-shooting odd formatting, MS Word still lags behind WordPerfect 5.0, where you can see from the embedded codes exactly what will happen with your formatting. With Word, you're essentially praying that WYS is really WYG.
Excel vs Calc: For now Excel is the clear winner, although with a few caveats. It's much better at doing things like inserting rows and columns -- inserts preserve formatting of surrounding cells, while in Calc inserts tend to get default formatting. Charting in Excel is also better, at least currently, in Excel.
My big issue with Excel is its utter failure to handle properly comma-quote csv. For cells containing numbers, Excel will ignore its own formatting of those cells as text, and still export them as numbers -- meaning lots of havoc when dealing with things like IDs and Zip codes that have leading zeros. Also, try changing the format of something that looks like a date to text. Now try changing it back to a date.
Powerpoint vs Impress: Not so much a question of which is better as which is less bad. On the whole Impress seems to mangle things a lot less, and seems to make far fewer (wildly incorrect) assumptions about what you're trying to do.
It's easier to throw a presentation together in Powerpoint, but nearly impossible to make it look really good. (If you've got a Powerpoint presentation you think looks really good, you've never seen a really good-looking presentation.)
Access vs Base: This is a tough one, mainly because while these products look similar they are actually very different.
Access actually does pretty well for what it is and within its own limitations. Yes, it is a toy database but it does let you do database-type operations on small data sets quickly and easily.
On the other hand, its ~2 GB filesize limit, its nasty habit of corrupting data, and it's baffling default query window behavior all mean that it's not something you can use for serious work.
If your data set has tens of thousands of rows, Access can handle it just fine. If you've got a million rows, forget about it. If you want your database to scale, forget about it.
Base is not a toy database, or even a database at all. It's a simple frontend for a proper RDBMS system, like MySQL or PostgreSQL. As such, it looks more spare but is far more powerful and scalable.
Outlook vs Anything Else: Winner: Anything else. I simply cannot take anything MS says about search or accessibility or convenience seriously until they fix this steaming pile of garbage. As long as it takes minutes to search my ~250 MB Exchange mailbox, and until Outlook can properly handle message threading I simply have nothing positive to say about this turd.
So where do Google Apps fit in? What they lack in polish and functionality, they make up for in speed, accessibility, and collaboration. They're not there yet, but the thread
Anything Microsoft creates will not work with iPhone/Mac/Linux/etc. They will always sabotage the other systems whenever possible. Even if it works on release, an update will break it. Listening to anything Microsoft says is like believing an abusive spouse won't hit you again.