Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Free, Online Version of Office To Premiere This Week

walterbyrd writes "Microsoft will offer an online version of Office 2010 for free. I have to wonder, will this remain free indefinitely? Or is Microsoft just trying to firmly establish its OOXML standard, then go back to business as usual?" Probably a harder sell after Google's acquisition of DocVerse.

10 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Requires .EXE Download by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a number of people in the Seattle Times Forum have noted, using this "web based" Office product *requires* downloading and installing an .exe

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  2. OO 3.2 kicks ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why bother? I swear to god, I can do anything I want in sun (oracle? no hate here.) oo32 that I used to do in o2k3

    Have you seen the OO32 release? My God! hahaha

    I already collect text editors, but gosh darn I just can's see paying thousands anymore? Maybe you got a translator or some proprietary nonsense? I think we all would be wise to audit and revise what we really need.

    Hey if you need Microsoft Office, more power to ya, the only thing I need now is a way to export their proprietary format to a real format which can be used in oo32 ;)

  3. Re:Don't forget GUID. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember that all Office applications embed a GUID in the document. My guess would be that the online version would as well. So your privacy is up for grabs.

    Oh joy! Does this mean I'll be able to track my documents via Facebook or will Facebook just do it for me without my knowledge?

  4. Re:Business model by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My take on it: they decided to do it because Google's doing it, and they don't want to get "left behind". Then they came up with a plausible-sounding business case for their scheme.

  5. Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally I find Google Docs only marginally useful even for the simplest of tasks, it would never replace a copy of Office for me.

    Personally, I find any "office suite" useless for the simplest of tasks. Why do people think their to-do list or 1-page memo requires anything more complicated than plain text?

  6. Re:second post by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

    suck the shit off my dick you faggot!

    You have shit on your dick? And you're calling someone else a "faggot"?

  7. Re:Is it safe? by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't really understand this FUD. Even if Microsoft does have a slightly different flavor of OXML it's not like it's impossible to convert them to something more neutral even if Microsoft took a play from Steve Job's playbook and completely went to the dark side.

    Man, you must be really, really new here.

    This is exactly the problem (and the same facile response) we've been coping with since the mid-90s, and I can tell you from experience that things are never as simple as you describe.

    Let's take one client I'm working with right now. They're a national institution, responsible for archiving court documents in perpetuity. That means, effectively, forever. Just about everything right now is being sent to them in PDF or DOC format. What do you think the odds are of being able to access these documents in 25 years' time?

    If, however, these documents were stored in plain text markup (e.g. XML) following an open, formal and workable specification whose definitions are slightly more robust than "Do this formatting the way we did in Word 97" and which consists of slightly more than dumping blobs of binary data inside tags, we might stand a chance. It would still be a bit of an ask, but in the worst case scenario, we could probably infer (or ignore) the parts that puzzled us most.

    Document formats matter because a great many of them -especially those produced by the public sector- have historical value and need to be preserved for a very long time.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  8. Re:Is it safe? by grcumb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What you say is right but not relevant to this discussion. The parent had commented on the comment of the GP that once you have a file in MS format, your ass belongs to them.

    Yes, that was exactly the intent when MS created its own proprietary document formats. There was a time when WordPerfect was happy to convert to and from Ami Pro, when Star Writer exported just fine to Word. Microsoft changed all that by relentlessly leveraging compatibility to feed their revenue stream.

    This may be true whether it is a file in Word format, PDF or an even more proprietary format from Apple. So it is not something unique to MS.

    Agreed. That's why I mentioned both Adobe and Word formats in the same sentence. I don't think either one is particularly appropriate (although PDF as a published specification is a great deal easier to work with when doing document conversion).

    And as to your 25 year time frame, I can still read the oldest document produced by Word on the latest MS Office.

    That's hard to believe, and not entirely relevant. What I'm talking about -as a minimal scenario- is a situation where the original software just doesn't exist any more. Twenty-five years ago in 1985, Word was something called Multi-Tool. I sincerely doubt one of its files would open in Office 2010 without significant effort from a developer.

    And lastly, who's stopping you from storing files in XML format in Office?

    Nobody. That's exactly what we do. The problem is that we work with legal documents from over 20 countries and hundreds of different sources. We have a limited amount of development resources (mostly just me) and we need these documents to be available forever, effectively. If people could actually settle on a standard that really was a standard, if people could actually agree to look slightly farther down the track than their own desktops, we could actually spend time building new searching capabilities, ontologies and frameworks to make the data way, way more useful than it is today.

    Instead, I spend all my time dealing with half-assed, unstructured formatting brought about by the fact that people are content to use a second-rate implementation of a deliberately obfuscated format.

    Other vendors may be guilty of this, too. But Microsoft has done it longer and more effectively than most.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  9. Re:Is it safe? by guruevi · · Score: 5, Informative

    I concur. I make programs that generate documents based on some of these 'open' standards.
    - LaTeX is really the only thing you can trust if you want an editable text document. However (sadly) outside of scientific literature it's hardly used.
    - PDF and PostScript is great if you want a read only document, it works but I don't think it's really an open standard. It's more of a form of output, not really a form of carrying information.
    - ODF is an open standard and works really well but sadly not all editors interpret all tags the same.
    - OOXML is the worst of all. You simply can't open/read OOXML documents generated by Microsoft Office programmatically - sometimes they won't even pass an XML parser, you can generate documents programmatically according to the OOXML standard but a lot of the functionality (simple things like hyperlinks) will be misinterpreted by Microsoft Office and possibly corrupt the document (unreadable to all) if re-saved in Office.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  10. Parent IS NOT "informative". by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Parent IS NOT "informative". You may not create new documents with this web app unless you have the EXE installed. The Parent is "Uninformed".

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck