Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Accuses Google Docs of Data Infidelity
Hugh Pickens writes "For years Google has been pitching migrations from Microsoft Office to Google Docs, arguing that Docs makes Office 2003 and 2007 better because users can store Microsoft Office documents in Google's cloud and share them in their original format. Now eWeek reports that Alex Payne, director of Microsoft's online product management team, says that moving files created with Office to Google Docs results in the loss of data fidelity, including the loss of such data components as charts, styles, watermarks, fonts, tracked changes, and SmartArt. 'They are claiming that an organization can use both seamlessly,' Payne writes. 'This just isn't the case.' Meanwhile, Google defended its original 'Docs makes Office better' in a statement, noting that it has made a lot of improvements to the web editors in Docs with its recent refresh, and promising that functionality will only get better as Google integrates the DocVerse assets into Docs. 'It says a lot about Microsoft's approach to customer lock-in that the company touts its proprietary document formats, which only Microsoft software can render with true fidelity, as the reason to avoid using other products,' says a Google spokesperson."
Google has too many half-assed projects it cannot or doesn't fully support.
Uh, if Google cannot make their Docs applications compatible with Office formats, how is it Microsoft's fault? That besides the fact that 90% of Google's products are betas...
What they are saying is spot on. From my personal experience Google Docs does break charts, styles, watermaks, fonts, tracked changes etc... Even while the file formats are open now.
Sure it's probably fine for casual users, but it's a different thing within companies and enterprises. That's the difference between Google and Microsoft. It's good we can all decide which one we need, isn't it?
So this basically just states that Google Doc's data fidelity is only as good as Google makes it. So the only question businesses have is "Are Googles data fidelity policies better maintained than our own".
If yes, use it, if no, stay internal.
What Microsoft has to do with that question other than warping the question into an assumption to fear i sure dont know.
First sentence: Missing comma after "So." Remove the word "just."
Second sentence: Missing comma after "So." Missing apostrophe in Google's. Improper subject/verb agreement; are should be is. Quotes are not needed; if used, there should also be a comma. Poor word choice, fidelity isn't maintained. Missing a question mark. The period should be in the quotes.
Third sentence: Between "it" and "if" should be a semicolon, not a comma.
Fourth sentence: Missing commas to separate the clause "other than warping the question into an assumption," although an em dash or parenthesis would also be acceptable. Missing an apostrophe in don't. I should be capitalized.
You're welcome.
The parent post is not a troll. A troll is a post that stirs things up with an expectation that a flood of posts will follow. For example, had the post cited false grammar problems to incite people to reply with "wtf ur dumb" posts, it would have been a troll.
At best, it's off-topic. Please meta moderate accordingly. Insightful != Interesting. Troll != Redundant != Flamebait != Offtopic.
Except you quoted periods, not commas. You have an amazing capacity for missing the point.