Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Launches New Assault On Microsoft Office

Posted by timothy on from the to-the-mattresses dept.

Hugh Pickens writes writes "BetaNews reports that Google has announced the global availability of Google Cloud Connect for Microsoft Office, which went into beta late last year with technology that builds off Google's acquisition of DocVerse. Google Cloud Connect for Microsoft Office is essentially a plugin for Windows versions of the productivity suite (2003, 2007, 2010). 'The plugin syncs your work through Google's cloud, so everyone can contribute to the same version of a file at the same time,' says Google Apps product manager Shan Sinha. Additionally, Google announced a 90-day trial for Appsperience, described as 'a way for companies that currently use cumbersome legacy systems to see how web-powered tools help their teams work together more effectively.'"

99 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by mantis2009 · · Score: 2

    Google docs has real-time collaboration (you can see other people's edits as they happen). The video on collaboration for Google Cloud Connect in MS Office says you have to save before edits are synced to all collaborators. Sounds like a recipe for lots of sync inconsistencies to me.

    1. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Google docs has real-time collaboration (you can see other people's edits as they happen).

      So if I type "cockcockcockcock" at the keyboard when the boss comes into the room because, well, it helps me think, Sir, anyone else can read that change immediately? Does no-one these days realise how much productivity is lost by the ability for people to instantly and frequently interrupt you?

    2. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by oakgrove · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You can't have multiple people editing a word document anymore than you can have multiple people driving a car on their way to the office.

      To make such a far reaching statement, I assume you've actually tried it, right?

      Well, I have and i find it works surprisingly well. We have two women where I work; one works mostly on the internet side and the other mostly on the b&m side. They both have to collaborate on creating things like custom order forms and promotional literature, etc. to send out to new clients.

      Before I got there, one would start something in Excel or Word and make it a little ways, then email it to the other who would do some more work then email it back. They would do this however many times it took until they were satisfied.

      The first thing I did was get them off of Office, then I showed them how to use Google Docs and the collaborative editing features. I've never seen two happier women over a word processor in my life. Now, what used to take days takes less than an hour. It's amazing. The little green cursor pops up on one screen and the red one on another and away they go.

      The simultaneous editing of documents, in my opinion, makes up for any lack of features that Google Docs may suffer from in comparison to Office. It's unbelievable how much more productive people are when they take the time actually try it out and get used to it.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    3. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Erm, so in your opinion, every time more then one person have to work on the same file at the same time (aka collaboration), sitting at the one, same computer, it's a "clusterfuck"?

      Do you even understand what collaboration features are designed for? They are there to recreate the experience of multiple people sitting at one monitor and keyboard, working on one document. This is common office work in most companies, from more complex presentations to folks in accounting going over same account sheets and everything in between.

      This is supposed to be this way. It has always done that way before, when these people sat in the same room. Nowadays everyone is at their own workstation, collaborating in the cloud is essentially trying to recreate that same thing. You can do stuff like "hey, what do you think of this here?" "no, this here is wrong", etc while being on other sides of the planet without having to essentially email the same document back and forth a thousand time.

    4. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2

      Does no-one these days realise how much productivity is lost by the ability for people to instantly and frequently interrupt you?

      This is why I no longer use IM at work. (Note, my employer encourages IM for communication between employees.)
      People don't even try to solve a problem, they just interrupt me.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    5. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      So if I type "cockcockcockcock" at the keyboard when the boss comes into the room because, well, it helps me think, Sir, anyone else can read that change immediately?

      Yes. Though this is a terrible evil, the silver lining is that this feature also allows you to instantly see when something has been updated.

      Does no-one these days realise how much productivity is lost by the ability for people to instantly and frequently interrupt you?

      Do you not realize how much productivity is lost when you have two people working on the same shot because the spreadsheet hasn't been updated?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      My God Man! Think of the BIG PICTURE. People will know when I'm not doing something, and may even expect some sort of performance improvement after they figure out that I now do nothing at all.
      Seriously, I am going to lose sleep over this...
      And I'll probably be expected to try and recoup those lost z's at home.
      Doh!
      Stupid Cloud...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    7. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by digitig · · Score: 1

      Just don't type it into the shared document. Simples.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by chudnall · · Score: 1

      You can't have multiple people editing a word document anymore than you can have multiple people driving a car on their way to the office.

      To make such a far reaching statement, I assume you've actually tried it, right?

      Yes I have. My wife tries to drive the car with me every time we go somewhere. She is entirely undaunted by the fact that it never really works very well.

      --
      Disclaimer: Evolution comes with NO WARRANTY, except for the IMPLIED WARRANTY of FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    9. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      This is not a good place to insert a car analogy. Try Libraries of Congress or something else.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't have multiple people editing a word document anymore than you can have multiple people driving a car on their way to the office.

      To make such a far reaching statement, I assume you've actually tried it, right?

      The first thing I did was get them off of Office, then I showed them how to use Google Docs and the collaborative editing features. I've never seen two happier women over a word processor in my life. Now, what used to take days takes less than an hour. It's amazing. The little green cursor pops up on one screen and the red one on another and away they go.

      Do you think he meant a "Word" doc or a text doc?

      He may have meant the inability to easily collab on MS Word.

      I do agree about Google Docs tho... REALLY, REALLY cool.

      I'm starting up a company right now, decentralized, in the cloud,
      using Google Docs, EC2, etc. And you can just sit there and
      work on a docs and suddenly see the colored cursor appear and
      words, adjacent to yours. They see your cursor in color too, so
      they won't overtype you. It's pretty much like the difference
      between one worker building a house... and what you would
      expect, a full compliment of contractors working at the same
      time.

      Collab is the future. Cloud is the future... embrace that big, wet
      amorphous blob.

      -@|

    11. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Google docs has real-time collaboration (you can see other people's edits as they happen).

      So if I type "cockcockcockcock" at the keyboard when the boss comes into the room because, well, it helps me think, Sir, anyone else can read that change immediately? Does no-one these days realise how much productivity is lost by the ability for people to instantly and frequently interrupt you?

      s/cock/Cock of the Walk/

    12. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by swb · · Score: 1

      I think at one time collaboration was a group of people in a room and a stenographer and/or a secretary transcribing the changes of the people in the room.

    13. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      This is not a good place to insert a car analogy. Try Libraries of Congress or something else.

      Imagine a school bus full of kids learning to backseat drive.

    14. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by MareLooke · · Score: 1

      IM > Telephone, at least it allows you to finish what you were doing, unlike that bloody telephone that has to be picked up immediately.

    15. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I fail to see what this collaboration has to do with people walking in and interrupting you.

      I've used real-time collaboration in Google Docs before, and it's brilliant. I've used it on spreadsheets, not word processing documents, but I assume the word processing interface is similar.

      In spreadsheets, you're working along and suddenly a box appears on the right saying "Frank is also editing this document". It shows the cell I'm currently editing highlighted in one color, and the cell Frank is editing highlighted in another. Whenever Frank saves his cell, I see the new value, and vice versa. There's a chat window that I can talk to Frank and we can work on something together, so you don't have to print out what you are talking about and meet somewhere in a conference room where neither of you have access to a computer. You can also just ignore each other if you're working on different parts of the spreadsheet, and when you're done your work is automatically and continually saved so you just exit.

      Sadly, we lack this capability at work (Office 2000 and 2003), but we're really hoping to get 2010 soon so there's some possibility of doing some document collaboration. It'll save me a lot of trips across town to work out the details of a document if a few coworkers from other buildings and I can all have the original open at the same time and work together on it. That'll free up time I can spend actually working rather than driving back and forth.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    16. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Dude, they have the best engineers, and even went so far as to recreate a file system based on an old one, not once, but twice, GFS and GFS2, I am sure I would trust their word, about how concurrency is kept on their systems...it might have lots of syncs, but they have even more checks in place for those syncs.....and even then, they have backups of backups of backups, so you are in good hands with google, probably even more then M$, that which you use (windows) everyday without thinking twice....!

    17. Re:collaboration doesn't look as good as in gdocs by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to be rude, but Google Docs is free. Sign up for it and take it for a test drive. I mean, really. It's got some serious balls.

      Does google docs audit and track all changes by users in documents or is it food for corporate political wars as users attempt to bugger up parts of a document that are other people's responsibilities and how readily accessible is it.

      It tracks all changes to all Google documents. Not, obviously, to Office documents you upload to it since Office doesn't natively track such things. In any Google document, just click on "File" / "View Revision History" and you get a Wikipedia-like list of revisions. Click on one and you see "before" and "after" highlighted neatly, along with the user who made the change. Seriously detailed history that's two clicks away.

      Also does google warrant the security of documents in the cloud with realistic values implicit with regard to, say tender documents were leaked information could be readily worth millions of dollars.

      No. Not in my opinion. If the document is security-critical and contains such things as your customer's credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc, don't put it on a server you don't own, and don't put it on a server you DO own that everyone inside the company has access to.

      Of course, my company has the same policy for email and word documents on our own servers. Anyone caught putting a credit card number in a Word document or spreadsheet or anything but the "red zone" financial database would probably be drawn and quartered. And that's as it should be.

      But for memos about progress on the latest project, I mean, yeah, competitors would probably lap that up. But it wouldn't compromise the business. Not that it matters, we're on an old version of Office that lacks collaboration anyway, so instead of worrying about security breaches we spend our time waiting in line to edit the project status spreadsheet that Bob just locked before he headed off on vacation for a week.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  2. web-powered? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    Just because it's on the Internet it doesn't mean it's "web-powered", Google. Version control isn't the same as a shitty web app, even if this is the embrace&extend Google are trying to subject MS to.

    (Of course, unlike regular version control, for some reason a third party is needed and permits itself to datamine your repository.)

    1. Re:web-powered? by vikstar · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? This plugin allows live synchronisation over the internet, how is that not "web-powered"?

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    2. Re:web-powered? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The Internet is also powered by AOL.

    3. Re:web-powered? by Mia'cova · · Score: 2

      While I find the term "web-powered" quite painful, we do call plenty of things "web services." In this case, I would assume that's how this is implemented. These days, services are beginning to unify their APIs. Rich clients and ajax-based browser app are starting to share the same web service APIs. So if it's implemented as a web service, I wouldn't take offense to the term "web-powered," even though it reeks of marketing.

    4. Re:web-powered? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The Internet is also powered by AOL.

      Especially so in Libya.

  3. How is this an assault? by Suki+I · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The title does not seem to go with the article. It sounds like Google is adding more functionality to Microsoft Office, free of charge. What am I missing?

    --
    Home of The Suki Series
    1. Re:How is this an assault? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      It's like when MS released Services for Netware/Unix/Mac - a shitty implementation for "legacy" clients as gateway to the full MS experience. In that case, the downgrade was to NT server. In this case, it's via "Appsperience" to Google "Apps".

    2. Re:How is this an assault? by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 2

      The title does not seem to go with the article. It sounds like Google is adding more functionality to Microsoft Office, free of charge. What am I missing?

      Slashdot is no different to most mainstream media these days - everything has to be classed using aggressive words like "war", "assault" or something else dramatic. The odds of using such emotion in a headline increases when dealing with articles about Microsoft. I don't expect things to change one bit, because it seems to work.

    3. Re:How is this an assault? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
      • Throw grit in the upgrade treadmill: If Google gets a portion of the MS-Office customers using the new service, and if MS-Office upgrades break the functionality the users will complain. In the past Microsoft will ask them to go fly a kite and ramp up the speed of the upgrade treadmill a notch. Now Google has enough credibility and if it blames/accuses Microsoft of deliberately messing up the API, Microsoft could not shrug it off or giggle at it like it did to DR-DOS
      • Detailed usage profile: Google will have very detailed view of the docs being saved, features being used most often. It will help cherry pick the most important functionality to implement in Google Docs.
      • Portability Testing: Google would have a steady supply of documents it can experiment with in testing how well it ports to Google doc and back. Yeah, yeah, there are some confidentiality issues. But google could easily replace the text with random gibberish but keep all the formatting in its test suites. Or it could get some companies to volunteer to be guinea pigs. Or pay to volunteer. Or just be a little evil and use it anyway
      • Platform grab: Just grab the platform, interaction and the plumbing first. The actual application that is running on it can eventually fall into your lap. Same thing MS did in its fight with WordPerfect, Lotus123, dBaseIII etc. If google owns the platform, MS-Office is just another GUI app.
      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:How is this an assault? by dave562 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are taking aim at SharePoint. Now users can collaborate on documents without needing Microsoft's solution (SharePoint).

    5. Re:How is this an assault? by Monchanger · · Score: 2

      It sounds like Google is adding more functionality to Microsoft Office, free of charge. What am I missing?

      For a moment don't be Microsoft, be Google: Think three steps ahead.

      Today Google is making Office do something Microsoft still hasn't implemented for companies too small (or too smart) to use Sharepoint.
      Tomorrow the company's employees are editing documents from anywhere, changing their ideas of what the Internet can do (RIA) and that you don't actually need Office to read a .doc[x].
      The next day the boss realizes Google has something to offer and it's much cheaper and often higher quality than the stuff he's been licensing from Microsoft.

      It's not guaranteed to work, but there's nothing to lose. Worst-case scenario? Nobody buys the service, Google wasted a teeny tiny fraction of its $35B cash on-hand, shuts it down and Office is offline again. No biggie.

      Plus, Google called Microsoft Office not just "cumbersome", but "legacy". Them's fightin' words.

    6. Re:How is this an assault? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      There are two different components of Microsoft Office:

      1. The applications. Popular software that I personally feel are the best of the breed for word processing, presentations and spreadsheets. While I prefer LaTeX for documents and Matlab or Python/Scipy/Numpy for math (rather than spreadsheets), I've always had much better experiences with MS Office than Open/LibreOffice. Other options are nice but are less featureful (part of what makes them nice of course). I haven't really tried the Apple options though.

      2. The formats. Obfuscated formats justified as standards by bribing the appropriate organizations (ISO). By being de facto as well as de jure standards, MS Office cannot easily be competed with, since there will always be that one thing (for me equations mostly) that never translate to other software.

      This move attacks the second aspect of Office, by offering an alternative format with real advantages. This second aspect is the truly insidious (and dare I say, evil) part, and I would be glad to see it go, even if I would likely still use the MS Office applications where possible (i.e. not Linux) in an ODF-dominated world.

  4. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    What are your difficulties with MS Office? Be technically honest, IOW illustrate why any problem-solving you have attempted has failed.

  5. So this is basically, a distributed filesystem by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

    But without locking or versioning. That'll work a treat. Fastest finger wins.

    Sorry, forgot, we get to spend our lives on conference calls now, we can all play distributed lock manager. Like dungeons and dragons but corporate.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:So this is basically, a distributed filesystem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think youu're looking for 'Apartments and Accountants'

    2. Re:So this is basically, a distributed filesystem by Simon80 · · Score: 2

      Let me get this straight. You're saying that Google Docs and this product are fundamentally flawed because they don't force the user to lock things before editing? The versioning is present, it's just implicit, which is the way it should be if the average user is going to willingly use version control.

    3. Re:So this is basically, a distributed filesystem by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      I think youu're looking for 'Apartments and Accountants'

      Or Sheldrakes and Kubeliks

    4. Re:So this is basically, a distributed filesystem by One+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Boardrooms and Bureaucrats

      --
      www.nodicerpg.com - Some RP stuff for free, some not so for free, but still cheap.
    5. Re:So this is basically, a distributed filesystem by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that Google Docs lacks features because there is no /optional/ and /visible/ locking of /parts/ of the document, and because you don't get a choice about when to commit your changes (making them visible to others). I thought it was Mac users who go about telling you that a lack of features is for your own benefit, but I guess Apple and Google aren't that different.

      Anyone who actually uses Office for more than writing employment covering letters knows that the Office 2010 + SharePoint is actually fairly fucking powerful when compared to the Internet based Microsoft Works that is Google Apps.

    6. Re:So this is basically, a distributed filesystem by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2

      No. It was a comment meant to be funny. Get a sense of humour installed. I think Debian have one in their repo.

       

      --
      Deleted
    7. Re:So this is basically, a distributed filesystem by Simon80 · · Score: 1

      Oh, is that where you got yours? You might want to fire up reportbug and tell the maintainer that it seems to be producing snarky comments instead of funny ones.

    8. Re:So this is basically, a distributed filesystem by Simon80 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that missing features benefit people who miss them. I certainly would not see any value in using Google Docs for anything except for the real-time collaboration, which works a lot better than various people here seem to think. It would certainly be useful to optionally have more control about when committing happens, or to have some reassurance that conflicts are presented to the user instead of possibly overwriting useful work (I hope they do this right but have never seen it occur - when editing happens in real time you aren't really fast enough to make a conflict). My point is that the people in Google's target market are those office workers who use Word because they need a basic word processor, for which there historically were no low-end alternatives after Microsoft conquered the market in the 90s. I see tons of missing features in Google Docs, but the average person that they're aiming for wouldn't see the point of choosing when to commit your changes, and may not even care that there's a revision history at all (despite this being an insanely vital feature for a product like this).

  6. whuh? by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    "Too the cloud, Alice!"
    What the hell does that even mean?!!!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:whuh? by FPoe · · Score: 1

      I've asked myself this many times. As a storage analyst, everyone always uses "the cloud" as a buzz word to excite their managers into spending money. In the end it's still business as usual. disk backend, FC switched SAN. Sure it may be on demand, but when does on demand end? When I upload 14TB of documents?

    2. Re:whuh? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Dilbert explains it to you

      http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-01-07/

      and related

      http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-09-09/

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:whuh? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      I've asked myself this many times. As a storage analyst, everyone always uses "the cloud" as a buzz word to excite their managers into spending money.

      In the end it's still business as usual. disk backend, FC switched SAN. Sure it may be on demand, but when does on demand end? When I upload 14TB of documents?

      You really don't get it... it scales EASIER. Fault tolerance
      is TRUE fault tolerance. When something breaks in the middle
      of the night, you can fix it the next day cause at most maybe
      you lost 20% cycles, all the data is still there, it's still available.

      You come in the morning, replace the broken item, no one even
      knew anything had happened.

      The entire backend "cloud" has been commoditized. Sure it
      runs much better on a bunch of blades or server optimized
      equipment but you can use commodity stuff until that point!

      Not sure what the 14TB of docs has to do with it?

      Oh! Wait... you're one of those, that sees the word cloud and
      thinks it only runs on magic on someone ELSE's servers.

      No, that type of cloud is for SOHO and personal use. I'm talking
      about the private corporate cloud. All your data is still yours,
      it's still under your roof. You control it.

      Resistance is futile you will be assimilated into the cloud.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    4. Re:whuh? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      s/2011/1985/g
      s/storage cloud/VAXcluster/g

      OK, now I get it.

  7. Potentially Shady Opportunity for Google by mfh · · Score: 1

    The spin from Google on this seems legit, but it also seems like they just want to have access to all our shit in case they want to snoop. I mean how hard would it be for them to read all the documents or pass on our footprints to other parties?

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Potentially Shady Opportunity for Google by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      They will charge you a fee to set it up in-house if you don't trust the googleplex. Remember kids, the first hit is free, the addiction not so much (see Microsoft Office)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Potentially Shady Opportunity for Google by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that's true. If you mean the GSA, that's just search, not docs. The "docs for enterprise" stuff all mentions hosting on Google's cloud, even if you get your own domain. I'd love a link that proves me wrong.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  8. Embrace, Extend.. by mewsenews · · Score: 1

    Microsoft should write some server code that can talk to Google's Cloud Connect plugin! Then we can have Google search results on Bing and Google Doc files on Microsoft's cloud servers!!

    1. Re:Embrace, Extend.. by nemesisrocks · · Score: 1

      If this was really "Embrace & Extend", the Google addin would "embrace" the Ribbon (love it or hate it), and "extend" their addon buttons to another tab (like say, Acrobat does).

      Instead, they choose to have an ugly old-style toolbar occupying more vertical screen real estate.

  9. Good Luck! by foobsr · · Score: 1

    TFA; "so everyone can contribute to the same version of a file at the same time"

    Which essentially means that the file is versionless.

    Good luck restoring to an intended state if someone fucked the thing up.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    1. Re:Good Luck! by mclearn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you even used Google Docs before? Every document has a detailed versioning history with full support to revert back.

    2. Re:Good Luck! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      You've got to love Slashdot, where everyone has a say, and no one ever RTFA (or even uses the product commented on).

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
    3. Re:Good Luck! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Thank you for alerting me to the fact that a revert is technically possible. I would not have imagined that this is feasible. I am also not aware of the CVS concept, of which Wikipedia says "Developers are therefore expected to keep their working copy up-to-date by incorporating other people's changes on a regular basis".

      Especially now after you enlightened me, I see that I failed to take into account that users who collaboratively edit a document in a typical business environment are much more accustomed to manage concurrent processes (as well as their results,wanted and unwanted).

      Thank you for sharing your insights with me, Sir.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    4. Re:Good Luck! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      You've got to love Slashdot, where everyone has a say, and no one ever RTFA (or even uses the product commented on).

      Yes, I love slashdot, because it always gives me the chance to at least virtually encounter people that virtually are that much based in the realms of reality that implications rendered by concepts are beyond what their imagination can grasp.

      I indeed love that 'groundedness' .

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  10. Re:Incorrect Title by quangdog · · Score: 2

    I'm still confused about the word "Assault" in this title... if they are assaulting with MS Office - whom are they assaulting? The only other decent real-time distributed document editing system that is worth using is google docs. Why would Google partner up with MS to assault... Google?

    I'm still amazed at the stranglehold that MS Office maintains - I've not owned or used a copy of Office in more than 10 years. Plenty of alternatives exist, and they work great.

  11. Re:Incorrect Title by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    OOI, which others have you actually tried?

  12. Re:Incorrect Title by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    It's all about verbs. If they said, "waggles free widget" you'd just scroll off. But hey, "assault" sounds aggressive, doesn't it. Doesn't mean that the actual syncing tool is greater than Halo on Android, but ow you can plop your data in two places.

    Isn't that "assault"? I mean, c'mon.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  13. "Contributing to same file at the same time" by unity100 · · Score: 1

    I actually have seen this at work in a production environment, and it really works. it was a curious experience, after all those years of standalone office programs.

    its as if a lot of people are in the same chat room, but producing a document.

    --
    Read radical news here
  14. Just posted it on the other thread about it. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Why google is doing this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2010812&cid=35302300

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  15. Not what I was hoping for yet by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    I would like some way of using Word to edit stuff stored in Google Docs. All this seems to be is a way of using Word to upload stuff.

    Anti MS comments aside, Word is a better Word Processor than Google Docs. Docs is very good but it is not what World+Dog is familiar with - yet...

    If someone can point me to how I can use Word to open stuff on Docs, edit it and save it back there that will do the trick. Then we will just need to make an Open Source plugin for stuff like Open Office and Office Libre and it will quickly find its way onto everything else. Microsoft can pick up its bat and go home...

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:Not what I was hoping for yet by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Insync. Google Docs on your desktop.

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
  16. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by oakgrove · · Score: 2
    You said "MS Office". Are you referring to the desktop silo'd version or the online version? I'll assume you mean the one you have to use on your desktop PC.

    Four problems.

    • It costs too much when the competition is free. Of course my problem solving didn't fail. I successfully moved us to Google Docs.
    • Office doesn't have real time collaborative editing. Google Docs does. We save real money when people can work together faster. If I tried to pitch Office to my boss after he's seen how much more gets done with Google Docs, he'd throw me out on my head.
    • When we create documents, we like them automatically shared and accessible from any other computer anywhere. Google Docs does this automatically and instantly. Office does not.
    • Google Docs works on the boss's iPad. MS Office does not.
    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  17. How good is compatability? by enter+to+exit · · Score: 1

    Having never used google docs for any real work, can someone tell me how well Google docs handles MS formats especially. docx and .doc ?

    I'd assume it would have to be near perfect otherwise it would suffer from the same problems facing Openoffice/Libreoffice...unless i'm not fully understanding the concept of google docs...

    1. Re:How good is compatability? by joh · · Score: 1

      Google Docs is only a poor replacement for MS Office. Either you squeeze what you have to do into what Google Docs supports or you leave it. I think it is clunky and has a terrible UI, too. But as always with Google it it as free as air and everyone is breathing it.

  18. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Google has already addressed the whole security issue (relevant document is here here ). Microsoft's own EULA's language is so thick and customer unfriendly that they could have the right to sleep with your daughter and kick your dog and you wouldn't be the wiser.

    As for the part about the keeping data on your computers, what prevents you from keeping a backup of your gdoc cache, I do it and makes it so that I can keep the warm and fuzzy feeling of having my documents with me as well. I prefer this because keeping documents syncronized between a netbook, a laptop, a smartphone, and all the various computers I work on is a pain in the ass.

    I work in the education market and I can tell you this, once you show a teacher how to keep a syllabus synchronized for 30 students and can set up shared documents for group projects, they jump on it hardcore.

  19. Was anyone else disappointed..? by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    Was anyone disappointed when they found out that this didn't mean Google was rolling tanks out out of mountain view?

  20. Re:Did /. become CNet? by westlake · · Score: 1

    How is this news for nerds? More like News for Office Drones!

    The "office drone" is worth $6 billion each quarter to Microsoft.

    You mght want to think about what that means when you are trying to develop and promote an alternative office suite or an integrated office system.

    That means that consumers spent more than $1 billion on Office last quarter. According to investor relations director Bill Koefoed, a lot of those sales are upgrades in place from Office 2003, but consumers are also buying Office 2010 when they buy new PCs -- or upgrading from the free Starter Edition that comes with many new computers.

    Businesses are still the main customer for Office, however, and they spent nearly $4.6 billion on it and related products during the quarter.

    Office Saves Microsoft's Bacon For The Second Straight Quarter

  21. This sounds more like an assault on... by His+Irateness · · Score: 1

    ...document management systems, like Hummingbird, than on Office itself. I suppose they're trying to get people used to "Cloud" document storage, though, so they can slide them into Google Docs.

  22. BINGO! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    What a day to not have mod points ...

    I'm hoping our company tries this instead of implementing SharePain for the ten people who need to do collaboration. In fact, I'm mentioning it tomorrow!!!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:BINGO! by dave562 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SharePoint is good for a lot of things, but I would put Google Docs like collaboration pretty far down the list. It's great for large projects. I've seen construction companies and law firms leverage it very successfully. But for 10 people, Google Docs is probably all you need.

      The thing I like about SharePoint is the way it supports processes and work flows. For example, if you have something like a construction bidding process where you're often filling out the same forms over and over again, and a lot of people are involved at different phases of the process, you can setup a work flow to route the documents from person to person. SharePoint handles the noticing "Hey Bob, it's time for you to sign off on X, Y and Z! Click here."

    2. Re:BINGO! by marcosdumay · · Score: 2

      Share Point is great for a lot of things. Unfortunately, being a trustworthy repository for data and making good use of servers are not some of those things. Your example also:

      "For example, if you have something like a construction bidding process where you're often filling out the same forms over and over again, and a lot of people are involved at different phases of the process, you can setup a work flow to route the documents from person to person."

      This is a great example of Microsoft taking a problem and creating a huge piece of software that makes the problem bigger. If you are often filling out the same forms over and over again, there is your problem. Now, you must either stop filling the forms (if they are not data aquisition), or at least stop making they flow around like they were useable data (if they are data aquisition).

      --
      Rethinking email
    3. Re:BINGO! by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Share Point is great for a lot of things. Unfortunately, being a trustworthy repository for data and making good use of servers are not some of those things.

      Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Not trustworthy? Not a good use of servers? I've seen 1000+ users on a 4 server SharePoint farm accessing over 10TB of data, day in, day out.

      This is a great example of Microsoft taking a problem and creating a huge piece of software that makes the problem bigger. If you are often filling out the same forms over and over again, there is your problem. Now, you must either stop filling the forms (if they are not data aquisition), or at least stop making they flow around like they were useable data (if they are data aquisition).

      You have no idea what you are talking about. Businesses live on standardization. If you create a new way of doing things for every project you do, you're an idiot. You've obviously never done business with the government, or in the legal world, or pretty much anywhere if you haven't dealt with a standardized way of doing things. What exactly do you do, besides talk out of your ass and make proclimations about things you obviously know jack shit about?

      If you're going to spew nonsense, at least try to find something valid to harp on. Next thing you're going to say something like, "Microsoft is being stupid because they make it easy to re-use functions in Visual Studio. If you're re-using the same function over and over again, you either need to stop doing it, or you need to find another language to program in that doesn't use functions."

    4. Re:BINGO! by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      This is a great example of Microsoft taking a problem and creating a huge piece of software that makes the problem bigger. If you are often filling out the same forms over and over again, there is your problem. Now, you must either stop filling the forms (if they are not data aquisition), or at least stop making they flow around like they were useable data (if they are data aquisition).

      This is more of a case of you not understanding the problem. When dealing with the legal system, government or regulatory agencies as both construction companies and law offices do, there are legal constraints and requirements that must be followed - the IT department doesn't get to set the rules and make "improvements".

    5. Re:BINGO! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what you are talking about. Businesses live on standardization. If you create a new way of doing things for every project you do, you're an idiot.

      I don't think his issue was with standardization or having workflows.

      His problem was that instead of getting rid of paper-based forms all that is being done is to make them word documents and semi-automate filling them out.

      Why are the documents being created in the first place?

      Back in the day you filled out order forms to buy stuff out of catalogs. Imagine if Amazon.com worked by giving you a word document template for an order form, with a PDF catalog on their website. You filled that out, and emailed it to some server. Then they routed that word document all over the place to the fulfillment group, the inventory group, etc. That would be the wrong solution to the problem.

      Instead they just give you a searchable, browsable value-added catalog, where you add items to a shopping cart, check it out, and then the system does the rest.

      Putting data in documents is usually a bad solution to a problem. Putting data in a database (via some kind of online form) reduces the data to a usable format, and allows for much better automation.

      That is my problem with sharepoint - it is a band-aid solution to problems that often have better solutions. If you need a 10-minute solution it is better than nothing. However, often it evolves like MS Access used to - the wrong tool for a big job.

  23. Re:Did /. become CNet? by WidgetGuy · · Score: 1

    Thanks for that link. I now have new, "sweaty steve" wallpaper!

    --
    One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
  24. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

    MS Office and LibreOffice kill GDocs. Also Microsoft has made deals so Novell's OpenOffice and KOffice have better compatibility thant Google. Google just don't want to take responsibility.

    Lol... hey... your pager is blowin up man!

    Google Docs(type of offering) is the future. Being
    constrained to one computer is the past.

    Those that cite compatibility are ignorant to the fact
    that if you START workflow on a new platform, the
    compatibility isn't an issue.

    Sure, lots of places have legacy office systems.

    And lawyers and doctors used to be all paper. Who
    but a fool would go to a doctor or lawyer now that
    didn't do a majority of their stuff on a computer?

    Exactly.

    Same thing with the cloud, same thing with the
    deconvergence [sic] of our connected, online and
    storage devices. The cloud will be NECESSARY.

    -AI

    --
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
  25. Re:Thank you! by kullnd · · Score: 1

    I would love to use google docs, it would allow for much more functionality than my current budget allows for, and I would likely have a more reliable system while cutting cost at the same time.

    That being said, I have two issues with google that they need to find a solution for before I could consider switching, they fix these and I would switch in a heart beat.

    First, I want to be able to limit the IP addresses that are allowed to log into corporate accounts... I don't want people on their home computers logging into google and having direct access to all of our corporate data. I would prefer that users have to connect to our VPN, log into a terminal server, and then access the google docs. There is alot of controls that I can place on the corporate computers, and the terminal servers, which protect our data from just being downloaded onto personal hard drives and this is VERY important to me.

    Second, I would like to be able to prevent any account that is NOT a corporate account from being able to be accessed on our systems, the risk for data leak is too high when myownfuzzylogin1979@gmail.com logs into google on a corporate machine. We have alot of sensitive information, and we take many steps to protect that information (i.e. our outgoing email is all screened and flagged if something is detected). As it stands today, google apps are blocked for this very reason.

    Google, fix those two things and we are good to go!

    --
    +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
  26. Threatened by change? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

    The comments here about how collaborative editing can't possibly work beggar my experience and office reality.

    Do most folks here really think that passing around versioned copies of Word docs in email is the most efficient way to work together? Or is it just what you're familiar with because you've been sucking on Microsoft's teat for 2 decades?

    Docs works. It's not great as a word processor, but it's totally made up for with the collaboration that a team can do in realtime. Try it before you bag on it, because I might have to work for you next.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    1. Re:Threatened by change? by Coriolis · · Score: 1

      It's one of the classic logical fallacies, Argument by Personal Incredulity. People seem to have immense trouble putting two and two together here. Google has put many, many person-years into working out how to do this. How do people think Wave worked, pixies?

      --
      Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
  27. Is real time collaboration a good thing? by ashvin213 · · Score: 1

    I write documents a lot of it. Most of the time, one person is in charge of either reviewing, commenting or making edits. I am unable to imagine why 10 authors sitting across the globe HAVE the urge to work on a document at the same time.

    Have /. users done this type of real-time collaboration? What is the scenario? Did you guys find it useful?

    1. Re:Is real time collaboration a good thing? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Yes. Used it extensively, both personally and for assignments I've given to students. Your "editor makes changes as the document evolves. There's both creation and brainstorming happening at the same time. What GDocs lacks in formatting is no problem since your "editor" can take the final document and make final formatting changes in a more featureful editor. Collaborative art for projects is even more amazing to watch.

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
  28. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

    http://download.services.openoffice.org/files/stable/3.3.0/OOo_3.3.0_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm-wJRE_en-US.tar.gz

    --
    "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
  29. Microsoft: Been There, Done That by DavidD_CA · · Score: 4, Informative

    All registered users of Microsoft Office 2010 enjoy the free Sky Drive service, a 2 GB storage space in "the cloud".

    Not only can you share files with others, but it integrates directly with the "Save" command in Office as one of the destinations.

    Oh, and the people you invite to collaborate with you don't even have to have Office. They can log in (for free) and edit your documents via the web-based versions of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. It's rather slick, and yes, it works in Firefox and Safari.

    --
    -David
  30. Would be nice if not for the bugs by ThatbookwritingWheel · · Score: 1

    I had the "pleasure" of working with DocVerse before they got acquired by Google. Nice tool, but the bugs, crashes, inconsistencies of it removed all the advantages. Bad preview quality, unusable once you used non-english content, I really hope they did some serious work on it recently.

    --
    We are all packets in the Internet of life!
  31. The worse of both worlds by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 2

    So you get the worse of both worlds : locked-in with a proprietary Microsoft file format, and your data handed over to Google. Great.

    Sorry, but I'd much prefer a standards-based solution (ODF documents on a WebDAV server, maybe).

  32. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    It costs too much when the competition is free. Of course my problem solving didn't fail. I successfully moved us to Google Docs.

    I hope you're not calling Google Docs "free"! Even if the "standard" edition is satisfactory, your payment right now is supplying your (i.e. your clients') data to Google for mining. What do you think Google are, a charity?

    Office doesn't have real time collaborative editing. Google Docs does.

    No. Note that, as in any proper versioning system, you sync when you're ready - not with every letter you type - although the areas of a document on which people are working will be shown (and optionally locked) if desired. If you really want "real time" letter-by-letter then you're a time-wasting idiot, but you can script an automatic Ctrl-S after each letter.

    When we create documents, we like them automatically shared and accessible from any other computer anywhere. Google Docs does this automatically and instantly. Office does not.

    Wow. When I create documents I certainly don't fucking want them "automatically shared and accessible from any other computer anywhere". If that's what I want, I'll enable it for specific documents through appropriate collaborative Office / collaborative text editor / version control - though there are still very few cases when I want something accessible "from any other computer anywhere". You have an awful security policy.

    Google certainly doesn't do anything "instantly". If you find the responsiveness of Google Apps better than local software, you need to buy PCs less than a decade old or fire your IT guy (you?).

    Google Docs works on the boss's iPad. MS Office does not.

    Oh. You got me there. It's like in the early '90s everyone computerising would go Wintel because, well, that's what the guy in the competing firm / in head office was being shoveled, and that's where all the shiny cheap marketing was going on. Despite dozens of options, so many decisions come down to the arbitrary whim of a good feeling. You've just illustrated one.

  33. Re:Microsoft: Been There, Done That by thijsh · · Score: 1

    Oh wow, it's almost like Google Docs, only a little late to the party!
    I have MSO2010 (hardly ever need it, but still) but for online collaborative editing I always use Google Docs. Both are 'free' and look OK, but I trust Google to do a better job at their search integrates with GMail so I can find relevant files in the bulk fast.

  34. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    Let's get this straight: MS Office doesn't have RT collab -- MS Office + Sharepoint does.

    --
    Put identity in the browser.
  35. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    Yes, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim that only Google Apps support realtime collaboration just because the server component forming Microsoft's offering doesn't come by default with its Office packaged product.

    Google makes the majority of its money from advertising and from mining your data, i.e. you are the product. You're likely to get everything thrown at you because Google wants as many products as possible to sell to advertisers. Microsoft actually sells software, i.e. you are the consumer, so you need to pay for each product you consume. This is a commercial difference, not a technical one.

  36. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

    I hope you're not calling Google Docs "free"! Even if the "standard" edition is satisfactory, your payment right now is supplying your (i.e. your clients') data to Google for mining. What do you think Google are, a charity?

    Where in my post did you see me say anything about putting any client data in Google Docs? That's right; nowhere. Not to mention the fact that we are in the wholesale sports apparel business. I'm not worried about Google trying to muscle in on that anytime soon. And furthermore, Google's stock in trade is using information for targeted ads. So, I get to use all of this great free software and all I have to do in return is see an ad that might, $DEITY forbid, be relevant to me? Oh, the humanity!!1 The day that Google decides to abuse peoples' information to compete with them is the day that Google gets dropped like a rock. Something tells me that they'd rather continue to make billions and actually stick to their privacy policy that by the way exists and is legally binding.

    If you really want "real time" letter-by-letter then you're a time-wasting idiot, but you can script an automatic Ctrl-S after each letter.

    Wow, the ignorance. Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. Use some hack to force Office to do what Google Docs does out of the box. So, ignoring that absurd suggestion, the difference between real time and saving from time to time is the difference between CB radio and a cell phone. Think about it, grampa.

    Wow. When I create documents I certainly don't fucking want them "automatically shared and accessible from any other computer anywhere".

    Do you download the internet every night so you can browse it the next day or do you just like to go to a website and see it as it is up to the minute? Yeah, me too. I also like my documents to be available when I need them.

    If you find the responsiveness of Google Apps better than local software, you need to buy PCs less than a decade old

    That argument is bizarre. So, what you are saying is Google Apps runs better than Office on an old computer (which is true). So, what I need to do is go drop hundreds to thousands on new computers and software to do what? Have a silo'd office install that offers less collaborative features and functionality? Er, yeah. Whatever. That borders on pure zealotry. The only one who should be fired is you. For the record, this box I'm typing on is an AMD Athlon X2 240 with 3 GB of RAM and Windows 7. Google Docs starts faster and runs just as fast as Office on it.

    Google Docs works on the boss's iPad. MS Office does not.

    Oh. You got me there. It's like in the early '90s everyone computerising would go Wintel because, well, that's what the guy in the competing firm / in head office was being shoveled, and that's where all the shiny cheap marketing was going on. Despite dozens of options, so many decisions come down to the arbitrary whim of a good feeling. You've just illustrated one.

    Another bizarre argument. Are you saying cross platform compatibility is a bad thing?

    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  37. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    Where in my post did you see me say anything about putting any client data in Google Docs? That's right; nowhere. Not to mention the fact that we are in the wholesale sports apparel business.

    So you do or you don't have clients? I'm confused.

    I'm not worried about Google trying to muscle in on that anytime soon.

    That's probably not unreasonable - I mean, it's not as if Apple uses its "app store" to knock out competitors to its own offerings, so allowing some big company to be your gateway is always safe. However, why aren't you worried that Google might sell on information to a large competitor? That an individual Google employee will sell it? Accidentally leak it? Provide it to the government without warrant? Google are not audited, they're not regulated, and they're infants in terms of reputation.

    And furthermore, Google's stock in trade is using information for targeted ads.

    And providing information to help sponsors.

    The day that Google decides to abuse peoples' information to compete with them

    Arms manufacturers win by selling to both sides.

    is the day that Google gets dropped like a rock. Something tells me that they'd rather continue to make billions and actually stick to their privacy policy that by the way exists and is legally binding.

    OK, I'll give you $50 in cash if you give me your credit card number. I promise not to abuse the information. My promise is legally binding. Today and for the rest of my soulless, corporate life.

    Use some hack to force Office to do what Google Docs does out of the box.

    Don't you mean the other way round? MS Office gives proper versioning control, i.e. locking of parts of document (if desired) and commits precisely when the user wants to commit. Whereas Google offers a cheap mess, like giving 10 people a sheet of A4 and allowing them all to write on it at once. Sure, it's fine for kindergarten drawing, but unmanageable for efficient, real work.

    So, ignoring that absurd suggestion, the difference between real time and saving from time to time is the difference between CB radio and a cell phone.

    Like a bird in a helicopter, that analogy makes no sense.

    I also like my documents to be available when I need them.

    Yeah. And I don't need or want them accessible at every computer across the world. Can you figure out why, perhaps? Funnily enough, by using a combination of local caching and enterprise serving, I've never found myself unable to access what I need to, even when I'm sufficiently remote that I'd need a satellite phone to get Internet access (not exactly unusual, if you're not a sheltered city troll). Google manage that for ya?

    That argument is bizarre. So, what you are saying is Google Apps runs better than Office on an old computer (which is true).

    What nonsense. I have 10-year-old machines running Office 2000 perfectly with near-instant responsiveness, while I have to watch the "web page" that is Google Apps redraw. Oh, that's right, another problem with web apps - my choice of versions are the version provided and... well, that's it. And good luck if they're having an off day.

    Another bizarre argument. Are you saying cross platform compatibility is a bad thing?

    Collect more straw.

  38. They're not assaulting anything with Docs sucking by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They've spent the last year making Docs suck more and more.

    1. Disabled offline editing, no replacement in sight but they promise it'll be fixed.

    2. Locked you into fixed page width and are unable to change how things are laid out.

    3. The new editor removed tons of customization because it was a big rewrite. I can understand getting basic features working before working on advanced ones but you can't roll out a new version of your product with less features than the original, critical features people are relying on.

    This is a problem with software as a service. If you fucking HATE the ribbon you can stick with Office 2003. There's the issue of not being able to work as easily with people using the new version of Office but at least your internal documents are fine. Using Docs, you have to upgrade when everyone else does and if they screw up something you like, there's no sticking with the old version.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  39. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

    That's probably not unreasonable - I mean, it's not as if Apple uses its "app store" to knock out competitors to its own offerings, so allowing some big company to be your gateway is always safe. However, why aren't you worried that Google might sell on information to a large competitor? That an individual Google employee will sell it? Accidentally leak it? Provide it to the government without warrant? Google are not audited, they're not regulated, and they're infants in terms of reputation.

    And providing information to help sponsors.

    Arms manufacturers win by selling to both sides.

    OK, I'll give you $50 in cash if you give me your credit card number. I promise not to abuse the information. My promise is legally binding. Today and for the rest of my soulless, corporate life.

    Whichever anti-paranoia medication they have you own... please double it. You can thank me later.

    Don't you mean the other way round? MS Office gives proper versioning control, i.e. locking of parts of document (if desired) and commits precisely when the user wants to commit. Whereas Google offers a cheap mess, like giving 10 people a sheet of A4 and allowing them all to write on it at once. Sure, it's fine for kindergarten drawing, but unmanageable for efficient, real work.

    For decades, people have been huddling in front of one computer editing the same document. Now they don't have to huddle. They can be on opposite sides of the world. If you don't see the benefit of being able to do that in actual real time then you are just ignoring the blindingly obvious. Since you don't appear to be that stupid, I have to wonder why that is.

    What nonsense. I have 10-year-old machines running Office 2000 perfectly with near-instant responsiveness, while I have to watch the "web page" that is Google Apps redraw.

    Oh, so you were just talking smack when you said:

    Google certainly doesn't do anything "instantly". If you find the responsiveness of Google Apps better than local software, you need to buy PCs less than a decade old

    Effectively saying that Google Docs runs better than "local software" (Office?) on old hardware. Does it make your head hurt talking out of both sides of your mouth? And if you have a 10 year old computer that you to have watch Google Apps redraw on, maybe you need to wipe it and do a reinstall. I have next to me an HP Pavilion zt1135 manufactured in '01 or '02. I just tested your theory on a spreadsheet in Google Docs that somebody here is working on. It came up almost instantly and was immediately editable. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just suggest a good anti-virus or update off of IE6. Surely, you're not just making stuff up.

    Another bizarre argument. Are you saying cross platform compatibility is a bad thing?

    Collect more straw.

    I pointed out that Google Docs works on the iPad. You brought up some nonsense about Windows in the 90's. Talk about strawmen.

    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  40. Re:Thank you! by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    "I would prefer that users have to connect to our VPN... There is alot of controls that I can place on the corporate computers, and the terminal servers, which protect our data from just being downloaded onto personal hard drives and this is VERY important to me."

    Sorry, but if you permit computers that you have no control access to such documents, you already have no control over where the documents go. Making them pass over your VPN won't improve the situation, unless you have a trusted computing infrastructure (complete, with device keys) on place. And even then, things get quite iffy.

    --
    Rethinking email
  41. Re:How does this go with european data privacy? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    Whichever anti-paranoia medication they have you own... please double it. You can thank me later.

    I'm paranoid for suggesting that Apple uses its gateway to neuter competitors, when developer agreement terms have been in place against duplicating functionality in Apple apps? I'm paranoid for accusing Google of cooperating with government for profit, after the Great Firewall of China acquiescence? I'm paranoid for stating that Google sells information about its products to advertisers, when it's owned Doubleclick since 2007? I'm paranoid because I think that Google may accidentally leak information, even when that's precisely what happened in Google China? Even when several vulnerabilities in Android show a distinct lack of engineer perfection? I'm paranoid because I don't trust every Google employee personally? Why am I paranoid, oakgrove?

    I'm still waiting for your credit card details. Remember, I promised not to abuse them. My promise is legally binding and nothing can possibly go wrong thanks to a malicious third party either.

    Oh, so you were just talking smack when you said:

    Take your hand off your cock and on to the braille reader a moment: I mentioned that Office 2000 works great on decade-old PCs. A decade-old PC will enjoy a CPU/memory performance bottleneck with locally hosted Office 2010 (yes, I've tried it), so resource-intensive operations are faster with Google Apps. Something 5 years old will do fine for Office 2010, however, while you've still got to wait for the network on Google. Speed of light's a bitch, and that's just a best case.

    For decades, people have been huddling in front of one computer editing the same document. Now they don't have to huddle. They can be on opposite sides of the world.

    Get Sergei Brin's dick out of your mouth for a moment and perhaps use his only worthwhile offering to find out how many collaborative editors there are. Hell, fire up emacs right now and make-frame-on-display.

    If you don't see the benefit of being able to do that in actual real time then you are just ignoring the blindingly obvious.

    Please, please tell me why I would prefer keypress-by-keypress broadcast edits rather than being able to commit when I've finished an atomic unit of work which takes my document from one consistent state to another. It's almost as useful as a transaction processing system which logs and broadcasts the exact position of the drive heads during any operation - useless, distracting noise.

    I have next to me an HP Pavilion zt1135 manufactured in '01 or '02. I just tested your theory on a spreadsheet in Google Docs that somebody here is working on. It came up almost instantly and was immediately editable.

    Spring '02, it seems. OK, 900MHz Celeron, which actually is a decade old (although manufactured almost 11 years ago now). I have an Office document double-clicked, open and can start editing it (quicklaunch off) about 20 seconds before Firefox has launched, I've gone to the Google Apps URL, I've waited for the Google Apps word processor page to load. Almost any action gives an irritating subsecond delay which is completely absent from local Office. Scrolling is jolty and slow on complex documents, while Office just doesn't bother trying to render if I scroll quickly enough. Office 2010 would likely not behave well on this particular machine, but I have the choice not to use it. What choice do you get in 10 years time if you choose Google Apps today?

  42. Re:Thank you! by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

    Google has already addressed the whole security issue

    Have they addressed how they will deal with law enforcement data mining? This is a big problem with data that is stored in the "cloud" - creative attorneys can easily find ways for your data to be residing in jurisdiction where your rights to protect confidential information are weaker or non-existent.

    In any event, entrusting confidential data with a 3rd party is a risk - a person doesn't have to be a criminal for confidentiality to be critical.

  43. Re:They're not assaulting anything with Docs sucki by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

    This is a problem with software as a service. If you fucking HATE the ribbon you can stick with Office 2003.

    Yes, but just a long as it is maintained, patched, etc... This is the problem with commercial software : it is developed not in the user's interest, but in it owner's.

    With open source software, there is no owner, just a maintainer; if he starts acting bad (or looking as such), someone will start a fork, just like LibreOffice did with Oracle's OpenOffice.

  44. Re:Thank you! by kullnd · · Score: 1

    Well, actually, you can put a lot more restrictions in place when you use terminal services based environments vs. just allowing file system access over VPN. Another points in my post had to do with the ability to bypass email controls if users are allowed to access non-corporate accounts inside the corporate environment. Any way you cut it, Google Docs makes it easier to access documents outside of controls vs. a server in a corporate environment. The allowed IP and allowed account rules were available, it would be a big step in closing some of these issues.

    --
    +++ATH0 NO CARRIER