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 don't fully agree with Stallman regarding cloud computing, but if you add Microsoft's usual strategies to storing all your documents with them (lets take their word that any browser will be able to use their web office) some danger could be there.
At least with Google's one i can download the docs in OpenOffice/Word/RTF/HTML format, thats the other "compatibility" that MS Web Office should provide too.
"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
So the real key to this is using AJAX like everyone else (Google, Yahoo, Slashdot, my employer's internal web apps, my grandmother) instead of some proprietary ActiveX bullshit.
Way to go, Microsoft!
The first component to allow client-side scripts to issue HTTP requests (XMLHTTP) was originally written by the Outlook Web Access team. It soon became a part of Internet Explorer 5.0. Renamed XmlHttpRequest and standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium,[1] it has since become one of the cornerstones of the Ajax technology used to build advanced web applications.
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.
This is a classic example of why we should have competition. It only takes a bit of competition thrown in and suddenly our Linux platform is supported. Consumer lock-in is great for business but bad for consumers.
I wonder just how long this platform embracing will last though?
-- main(s){printf(s="main(s){printf(s=%c%s%c,34,s,34
Do you figure there's a single moderator on Slashdot that doesn't know about your fourteen accounts and what you do with them?
Three different ones used in this article inside of 10 minutes.
And riddle me this, why do you reply to yourself as you did here instead of just making your point in a single post? I'm actually curious.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
This is not AJAX other than treating JavaScript as a bootstrap loader for SilverLight's .Net VM. It only works in Firefox and Safari in the same way that Flash or Java Applets do.
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.
Ok,I'm a pretty big geek.
Being able to access my stuff wherever I go has been my goal for a long time. When I was in college (before cheap USB sticks) I used to have a business card CD for my wallet with a java based ssh client (putty wasn't around yet) and a vncviewer executable. This way I could reach my stuff from the lab computers or anywhere else without installing anything. Realizing that wallet CDs suck I moved on to a web based solution. (try finding a wallet they actually fit in and then try to carry it everywhere without breaking it!) I had a javascript ssh client (mindterm) and a javascript vnc client on a webpage hosted from my machine. This worked... ok.... for the time.
My point is I get it... I get what is so convenient about cloud computing. but... is it really a good idea for allowing the placing of ones documents on someone else's machine (Mickeysoft, Google, etc...) become so commonplace? I realize 90% of what most people's data is going to be uninteresting and not worth getting concerned about. But... if what happens to the 10% of data that truly is sensative when erveryone's in the mindset of just use Google or just use Microsoft? IT guys/gals, do you really think the business suites in your company are going to even understand the differenct between working on a document hosted at some other company vs. running an office suite localy? Most will only know that this is what is easy, this is what they know, this is what their peers are using... For that matter, even people who do understand the difference, once they have been using the cloud for the unimportant data, are they even going to think about it or will it be second nature?
So... inaviteable as cloud computing seems to be, maybe it's time for an OSS web based Office Suite. Something that a company can install on it's own ssl encrypted web server, something that more adventurous home users can install in their own homes and use along with dynamic dns.
Now somebody else go write it :-)
The last time they said the same thing for DirectX...
Why guess if you can read TFA?
Office Web will use Microsoft's Silverlight rich Internet plug-in for added functionality such as extra zooming or prettified fonts, though users aren't required to use it, he said.
How is this even newsworthy? So ... Microsoft gets extra credit for doing what _should_ be done with web applications? Is it that or are we all just impressed it's not Silverlight w/ DRM and a paperclip that wants to spy on you and send all your personal details back to Redmond.
Steal This Sig
Yes I know this is a twitter shill but I just want to make some points
I for one have found Silverlight (actually Moonlight) to run better on my Linux/Firefox PC than Flash IMO. At least you can build it from source and make it run 64-bit natively
Riddle me this twitter, when is Adobe going to make a 64-bit Linux flash?... or when will Adobe help out the Gnash project?
Anyways Silverlight is more of a moot point, if they want it running on the iPhone and Safari you are just going to have to write good AJAX and Microsoft knows this.
In web services Microsoft knows it cant afford to lock out people that uses its competitions platforms as IE doesn't really have a stranglehold on the market anymore, I am not talking about Linux as much as I am talking about the iPhone, Firefox and other markets that they could open their products to that have web browsers like the Wii and PS3.
Despite it may be likely they have some sort of evil intentions but the most likely scenario is they have a revenue model around this and want as many customers as possible. When you have a product you want people to use and/or purchase it.
I myself may never use it (Google Docs/OpenOffice works great for me) but I am glad its there, it shows that Microsoft is acknowleging there is compeition which is a major step forward than where they were a decade ago.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
It's obvious the poor guy suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder, you insensitive clod!
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
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.
It's obvious the poor guy suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder, you insensitive clod!
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
Someone has to say them, so here we go:
I for one welcome our twitter responding overlords.
In soviet russia, twitter responds to you.
1. twitter
2. ???
3. Profit
Imagine a beowulf cluster of twitters
Yes, but can twitter run linux
Oh, and don't forget the Nazis.
*THREAD TERMINATED*
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
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.
You're wrong, jamstar7. Microsoft Office does NOT write to undocumented system calls any more.