Google Docs Ditching Old Microsoft Export Formats On Oct. 1

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Docs Ditching Old Microsoft Export Formats On Oct. 1

Posted by timothy on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @08:45AM from the file-formats-rule-the-world dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Google today announced a huge change for Google Apps, including its Business, Education, and Government editions. As of October 1, users will no longer have the ability to download documents, spreadsheets, and presentations in old Microsoft Office formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt)." The perils of cloud computing; LibreOffice will probably be the best conversion utility at that point. Apropos: Reader akumpf writes with an essay about the dangers of letting our data and our tools be hosted by the same provider.

137 of 199 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-26 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

is now gone. We used it at work because so many of our customers could read what we created. By requiring the strange .XML.ZIP format from Microsoft that isn't widely supported, we, like most people, will have to switch to another product if we want other people to be able to open our documents.
1. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Jeng · 2012-09-26 08:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If I read the article correctly you can still create documents in MS Office formats, you just can't download them in those formats. So your customers will still be able to open the files you send them, but you may not be able to open the documents they send you.
  
  this means that the search giant will still support exporting into these Microsoft formats: Word (.docx), Excel (.xlsx), and PowerPoint (.pptx).
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
2. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by ClaraBow · 2012-09-26 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Your customers will still be able to read the old .doc files, they just won't be able to export the files from Google Docs as .doc files.
3. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by atlasdropperofworlds · 2012-09-26 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Interestingly, MS office has been implemented as a online service, in javascript, that runs in the browser. If you have any MS-network email accounts you can use it. It will probably be the best conversion solution, for the time being at least. LibreOffice would be a second choice, but it doesn't always convert properly.
4. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by JDG1980 · 2012-09-26 09:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We used it at work because so many of our customers could read what we created. By requiring the strange .XML.ZIP format from Microsoft that isn't widely supported, we, like most people, will have to switch to another product if we want other people to be able to open our documents.
  Are you or your customers still running Office 97?
  Every version of MS Office from 2000 onward supports the new XML formats if the Compatibility Pack is installed. And if you've been interacting with anyone who uses Office 2007 or above, you will probably already have been receiving documents in these formats, since that is what newer versions of Office default to when you save.
5. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Sepodati · 2012-09-26 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't really clear in the short article, but I didn't see anything that indicated reading .doc, etc. files was unsupported. You just can't "save as .doc" something you create. If a client sends you a .doc, you can still read it, but whatever reply or edits you craft for them would have to saved in another format. I'm not a Docs user, though, so I don't know for sure.
6. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-26 09:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I chose to use Google Docs, because it allowed at a team of us to all view and edit the same spreadsheet at the same time.
  Then I wrote some Python and Perl software to automatically download the .XLS file and generate calendars based on it.
  It took about a day to rewrite the programs to work with the .XLSX format -- I had to do it about two weeks ago, when Google suddenly stopped allowing us to download .XLS files.
  I wish they'd continue to support .XLS files, because there are Perl modules for both reading and writing them, while there are Perl modules for only reading .XLSX files.
  I also wish Google had announced this change before they made it! I had to scramble over the weekend when they broke our system.
7. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by h4rr4r · 2012-09-26 09:25 · Score: 2
  
  You can still import xls, and ssconvert will convert xls to xlsx just fine.
8. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by obarthelemy · 2012-09-26 09:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Many people still use the old formats, if only because they already have lots of documents in those formats. Also because there's not much reason to change, and there are always outliers that won't handle the new formats well.
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
9. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Pieroxy · 2012-09-26 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  It wasn't really clear in the short article
  Do you mean to say Slashdot's summary? If so, you are correct. Is it rarely clear but often plain misleading or even just wrong.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
10. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by xaxa · 2012-09-26 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Are there not Perl/Python libraries for working with OpenDocument ODS spreadsheets? That would have been a much better choice, rather than relying on a proprietary format.
11. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Pieroxy · 2012-09-26 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  MS Office in JAVASCRIPT? Holy cow, I need to see that.
  Wait... Are you sure there's not a few million lines of C# running on the server as well?
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
12. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by mystikkman · 2012-09-26 09:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Every version of MS Office from 2000 onward supports the new XML formats if the Compatibility Pack is installed
  Customers send doc files and expect you to read them since almost everyone else uses Office. Sending a reply back to your clients or people at other companies saying, "Hey, install this addon and send it back in DOCX format" will only make *you* seem to be incompetent and a waster of time compared to your competition using MS Office.
  You can convert the doc and xls files locally, but isn't the whole point of using Google Apps to avoid having to have a copy of Microsoft Office? If you need to purchase a copy of Office to read the old formats anyway, you might as well not go the Google Apps route at all.
13. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by ThatsMyNick · 2012-09-26 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  No everyone has compatibility packs installed. Even if one of my customers does not have it (or one of the key people in the organization do not have it), I have to stick with older formats.
  
  Hell, there is even a compatibility pack available for ODF file formats. Do you go ahead and assume everybody has it installed?
14. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by farble1670 · 2012-09-26 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  ever heard of PDF?
15. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by icebike · 2012-09-26 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  ever heard of PDF?
  Pretty hard to modify for people that work collaboritivly.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
16. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by mabhatter654 · 2012-09-26 09:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But many places use the docs with VB6. THAT is the problem. First, these are HUGE systems that automatically accept .doc files. Second, after VB6 Microsoft's tools went .net and working with the office formats got a lot harder... You're talking 90% rewrite.... Or buy into the mess that's Sharepoint and hope you can hire somebody to make that work.
  If somebody spun up a Distro with WINE at XP level, DOC and VB6 compatibility some companies would eat that up.
17. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2012-09-26 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  finger slipped while trying to mod up, accidently marked as redundant. My appologies.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
18. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Type44Q · 2012-09-26 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  And to think that some peope don't like The Cloud... :p
19. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by fm6 · 2012-09-26 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  What, none of your customers can read .docx, .xlsx, or .pptx? These have been the default since Office 2007. And earlier versions (back to Office 2000) can handle them with a simple filter upgrade.
20. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Draconmythica · 2012-09-26 10:48 · Score: 2
  
  Only isn't what's happening at all. You can read still the .doc they send you without any issues. You can even create a .doc on your computer and upload it to Docs and send it to someone. You just won't be able to take a file on Docs and then save it to your computer as a .doc which admittedly there are uses for but they're definitely a minority.
21. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-26 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  would that not make microsoft office even more easy to pirate by simply copying all of the scripts and saving them locally? I'm pretty sure it is a lot more then just javascript running on their the front end may be written in javascript bu the work is being done deep in the bowls of a microsoft server farm somewhere.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
22. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by thereitis · 2012-09-26 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  They could... *gasp*... use Google Docs!
23. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by mspohr · 2012-09-26 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  Do you mean that your customers can't read any docx or xlsx files they receive from anyone?
  I really find that hard to believe. For at least the last 5 years, everyone has been sending around these new file formats... your customers must be flying blind...
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
24. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Technician · 2012-09-26 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Keep copies of your old software. I needed to recover some family history letters that was saved in Microsoft Works format for Windows 3.1 that was on floppy. To recover them, I built a Win 3.1 machine to run Star Office (legal copy saved with book and box) so I opened the files in Star Office with the import function to save formatting and then saved them in MS Word 97 format. From there I could transfer them off floppies. (Win3.1 does not support USB) Keep some older hardware handy.
  With the software changing formats, we were able to make dead tree copies as well as save it in newer formats.
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
25. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by xaxa · 2012-09-26 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but AIUI the MS "open" formats are (intentionally) very complicated.
26. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by ssam · 2012-09-26 11:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  libreoffice does a hybrid PDF, that embeds the ODF file as well. so when you import it back into libreoffice everything is preserved.
27. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by anubi · 2012-09-26 11:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Thanks. That is the first thing I thought too when I saw this topic under discussion.
  
  I have been working in electronic design for many years, I started out in CAD with "Futurenet" schematic capture and PADS for PCB layout. Both ran under DOS on 386 machines ( actually the Futurenet would run on a '286 ). I had SPICE analog circuit simulators which also ran on a '286.
  
  I still use these programs today. They are almost thirty years old. So far, I have been able to migrate them to run on the hardware I have.
  
  A couple of months ago, I had a customer I did a design for ten years ago tell me the ADC on the board I had designed for him was no longer available, and could I re-do it to use something else? The files were still on my machine and came right up. It did not take me long to completely redesign the layout to make him a highly upgraded board with the latest parts on it, yet still be completely fit and form compatible with the existing sockets of his product. Thank goodness the PCB house still honors old Gerber formats, and I can still print my schematics off with the old AutoCad .DXF.
  
  This was exactly the thing I groused a lot about when working in the aerospace industry when we constantly ditched what we had always chasing the latest thing. What happens when existing product in the field needs support? And how long do we expect product in the field to last? If our product only lasts a year or so, go ahead and design with tools that are only viable for a few months or so... but if we are designing a product that should last a hundred years, we better use tools and record-keeping instruments that will also be usable a hundred years from now. For hundreds of years, paper and ink worked fine as a storage medium. I can't say the same for digital storage - The physical media: optical CDROMS and flash drive, may make it through - especially if we have redundant file integrity and backup systems in place - but will we have the capability to read it with all the proprietary file formats, encryption, and IP law? Anything much beyond the standard public filetypes ( i.e. .TXT ), may go the way of ancient languages without even the benefit of a rosetta stone.
  
  Well, I guess I am about a quarter-way into my design of a 100 year support capability. I am quite confident my CAD system will last longer than I will, if anyone else sees fit to maintain it.
  
  The stuff I did for the Government during that same time frame is inaccessible, as the old CAD tools are now gone. I would have no idea how to resurrect the diagrams to those old RF modems that were done in the old special hardware machines. I guess it was a fortunate thing for me that when they "cleaned house", it was not only people like me that went, our old tools went too - and these were the old ones that would run under anything we could boot up into DOS.
  
  I was able to buy the CAD system I had used for five years at the company surplus store. The software has went from running on a '286, to '386, to '486, then Pentium, and now runs in a DOS box.... I figure that no matter how sophisticated our processors get, there will always be some DOS emulator floating around, just as no matter how sophisticated our technology becomes, I should always be able to find a pencil and pad of paper - because sometimes that's exactly what you need.
  
  ( Oh, incidentally, I'll run Eagle too. )
  
  --
  "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
28. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by temcat · 2012-09-26 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Now that is interesting, haven't ever heard about such a feature. Not that I need it much, but still thanks for the info.
29. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by defcon-11 · 2012-09-26 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh no, instead of downloading to .doc and emailing, you'll have to click share. Your customers are going to be absolutely outraged when they realize they no longer have to download anything, don't need an expensive fat client program, and can see changes to the docs in real time. Of course, you could always try .pdf instead, which has most of the same 'benefits' as .doc.
30. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Kalriath · 2012-09-26 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  ??
  What?
  Document formats have precisely nothing to do with Visual Basic versions. Zero. If you're referring to reading and writing office formats by applications written in Visual Basic, they don't have any built in support for that at all - it's all third party code.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
31. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Seumas · 2012-09-26 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Ninety percent of the reason? I haven't used Microsoft Office in over a decade and every company I've worked at has primarily used OpenOffice and StarOffice. There is almost nothing that ever *really* needs to be done in a proprietary MS document format. Hell, almost nothing ever really needs to be done in a full blown word processor, period.
  I would suggest that, if your workflow depends on eventual conversion to or from the specific MS Office format, then your workflow is wrong.
  It's also amusing that people are saying "this is the risk with the cloud". No, there are a lot of risks with the cloud. Privacy, data loss, security breach. However, issues with exporting to a specific proprietary-ish file format is not due to "the cloud".
32. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by rtfa-troll · 2012-09-26 17:04 · Score: 2
  
  This is not simply not true; With ODF the format is completely documented. Wtih Microsoft's formats the documentation misses major sections of description of the meaning of various tokens ("do like Microsoft Word '1945" or whatever)
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
33. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by atlasdropperofworlds · 2012-09-26 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  As sardonic as your reply appears to be, it is available, and it works surprisingly well - if you need MS Office that is.
34. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by atlasdropperofworlds · 2012-09-26 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's up and running. I bet just running it and hitting F12 will start to answer those types of questions. The point is, it's available as a web-based application, and they've integrated it with document sharing for collaborative editing - just like google docs - except it's office. For people who (think they need to) use ms office, it's great.
35. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by jimicus · 2012-09-26 20:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Have you ever used Google Docs?
  There is no such concept as "create documents in MS Office formats" in Google Docs; your sentence doesn't make any sense. You create a document or a spreadsheet, give it a name and that's it - exactly how or where it's saved isn't something you as the user worry about.
  It only becomes necessary to worry about it when you need to get the document out of Google Docs and give it to someone else.
  This isn't necessarily the end of the world because, as Google have pointed out, there is a compatibility pack available from Microsoft which allows older versions of Office to open .docx files.
  There is, however, one minor issue which appears to have entirely gone over Google's head. The only time anyone's likely to use this export facility is when you're sending the document to someone outside your company and whose computers you have precisely zero control or influence over. If they don't have the compatibility pack installed, the generally accepted polite thing to do is re-send in a format they can open. It is not to ask to speak to their IT department and tell those guys how to do their job.
36. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Pieroxy · 2012-09-27 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  So you're telling me there is a version of MS Office I can run in my browser offline? Please point me to it.
  BTW, I have no clue what sardonic means. Did you mean sarcastic?
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
37. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by RaceProUK · 2012-09-27 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Or Office Automation. Either way, it's separate from the dev environment.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
38. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by atlasdropperofworlds · 2012-09-27 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Outlook.com, log in (obviously), select skydrive from the dropdown in the top right. Create an office document. Edit it, etc.
  This should help you with your other question
39. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by mcgrew · 2012-09-27 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  I have no clue what sardonic means.
  Do you have a clue what "dictionary" means?
  sarÂdonÂicâ â/sÉ'rËdÉ'nÉk/ Show Spelled[sahr-don-ik]
  adjective
  characterized by bitter or scornful derision; mocking; cynical; sneering: a sardonic grin.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
40. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by jythie · 2012-09-27 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  I can recall last time I was job hunting, several companies required you send your resume in specific formats, often .doc since that is the format whatever back end they had knew how to work with... thus in those cases one really had no place to tell them to upgrade and would be SoL if using google docs.
41. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by jythie · 2012-09-27 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  It is not unusual for places to still be using Office97 or have some internal policy of standardizing on the Office97 format since it works pretty much everywhere.
  
  There are also cases where they have some internally developed application that takes Office97 formatted documents and does things with them, for instance electronic paperwork where you submit a filled out form as a doc and the fields are read out into some database. It could be argued that they should upgrade, but some places are slow or do not want to replace systems that already, well, work.
42. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by jimicus · 2012-09-27 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's a very good point - systems that take a .doc file and automatically put it into a database while extracting data from it for search purposes are endemic in the recruitment industry and in HR. If those systems haven't been updated to support .docx - while it's tempting to say "they should update them then!" that's not really the sort of thing a prospective candidate is in a very strong position to argue.
43. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by DragonWriter · 2012-09-27 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  We used it at work because so many of our customers could read what we created.
  
  I find it hard to believe that there is a large group of people out there that can read legacy Microsoft Office formats but none of the export formats that GDocs supports after Oct. 1
44. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by DragonWriter · 2012-09-27 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  ever heard of PDF?
  Pretty hard to modify for people that work collaboritivly.
  You know, if people want to collaborate with you on a document you use in Google Docs, there is a free web-based tool that lets them do that that doesn't require using any import or export filters.
45. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by Vlado · 2012-09-27 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's actually just the opposite of what you said.
  Download = getting the file to your local PC from the cloud, which also relates to inability to create the documents in the mentioned older formats.
  What follows is that customers that cannot open newer formats like .docx and rely on .doc will not be able to receive the documents created with Google docs anymore.
  You will still be able to open the old files, but the files will be automatically "upgraded" to the .***x version.
  On the other hand I have to say, that I find it surprising that this would actually still be a major issue. Whether we like it or not, MS formats are a de-facto standard for document distribution world-wide for a really long time now. The .***x formats have been introduced with Office 2007, so it's been about 5 years now that they are around. At the same time, if I recall correctly there are plugins for older MS Office versions that allow for work with the new formats.
  I can understand that some organizations may not like MS but in that case they are the ones causing problems to the rest of the ecosystem of which they are part and not really the other way around.
46. Re:And 90% of the reason to use Google Docs... by metamatic · 2012-09-28 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why the hell would you use XLS format for processing in Python and Perl, when you could download in OpenDoc format and use a standard XML parser?
  
  --
  GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Well then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-26 08:49 · Score: 1

... I guess I'm going to have to move all my online documents to Microsoft SkyDrive then.
And by M0j0_j0j0 · 2012-09-26 08:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is the reason i didn't pick google for my business, what about the customers that have processes that rely on that functionality?
1. Re:And by ThorGod · 2012-09-26 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yep! This just doesn't make sense. Google continues to be *the example* against anything and all things "cloud".
  
  --
  PS: I don't reply to ACs.
2. Re:And by Atzanteol · 2012-09-26 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Never before have there been forced upgrades or features dropped from applications! Outrage!
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
3. Re:And by geek · 2012-09-26 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  I know right? It's not like there is a free compatibility pack or anything
4. Re:And by M0j0_j0j0 · 2012-09-26 09:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem is not the drop, is the time-frame. like i wrote below
  The problem is they announce a functionality drop 1st October on the 26th of September.
5. Re:And by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2012-09-26 09:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I have been saying for years that any company that runs their business on Google apps will end up either out of business, or as a division of Google.
  Any company that relies on an online office tool is not a company I will be dealing with.
  
  All this cloud crap is just the return of the mainframe.
  Remember when Sun advertized "The network is the computer."? Well, it wasn't then, it isn't now, and I doubt it will be in the future.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
6. Re:And by farble1670 · 2012-09-26 09:47 · Score: 2
  
  i think people would say the difference is that you aren't forced to upgrade a local app, but google docs can just change over night. there's no option to not upgrade.
7. Re:And by petermgreen · 2012-09-26 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  Forcing updates is bad enough
  Dropping features is bad enough
  Combining the two is horrible behaviour
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
8. Re:And by webnut77 · 2012-09-26 12:21 · Score: 2
  
  All this cloud crap is just the return of the mainframe.
  No, it's not. With a mainframe, it's your data on your disks attached to your mainframe managed by your software.
  In the cloud, it's your data on their servers, sometimes managed by their software, according to their Terms of Service and mined for their benefit.
  Not remotely close.
9. Re:And by rgbrenner · 2012-09-26 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is not that they are dropping a feature.. that's fine. The problem is the time frame. Here's the announcement on 9/25 announcing the change:
  http://googleappsupdates.blogspot.ca/2012/09/scheduled-release-track-features-update_26.html
  They gave people 6 fucking days to fix any processes that rely on that functionality.
  I don't care that they have dropped support for it. But 6 days?!
  You really don't see a problem with that?
10. Re:And by rgbrenner · 2012-09-26 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry.. I got that wrong.. They scheduled it on 9/25, but then sat on their hands before actually making the announcement on 9/26. So make that 5 days.
  Too fucking lazy to give people a 6th day.
11. Re:And by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2012-09-26 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I stand corrected. It is the mainframe, but worse.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
12. Re:And by exomondo · 2012-09-26 17:40 · Score: 2
  
  Never before have there been forced upgrades or features dropped from applications! Outrage!
  Yeah but at least in non-cloud environments you can keep running the software as-is.
13. Re:And by jimicus · 2012-09-26 20:44 · Score: 2
  
  It's actually remarkably rare.
  There are upgrades that rapidly become difficult to live without (eg. when Microsoft were changing their file format subtly with every version of Office up to '97), there are upgrades that you'd be well advised not to ignore (eg. when an old piece of software is a piece of chicken wire security wise and the developers decide they're not going to patch any more holes that show up in it), there are vertical markets where they don't force you to upgrade but they jack up the price of support for the older version as an encouragement.
  But causing features to evaporate from under you with about a week's notice and you being utterly powerless to do anything about it is pretty rare. Except, that is, when it's a web application. (Particularly a web application from Google).
Re:Shouldn't have used HOSTS file by schlesinm · 2012-09-26 08:51 · Score: 2

May I be the first to say...WTF???

--
My company home page
No need really by goldgin · 2012-09-26 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I make it a habit of installing the free compatibility pack on my office 2003 installations to open docx and similar "new gen" documents. Works like a charm on the majority of documents.
Who cares? by rashire · 2012-09-26 08:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Am I the only one who found this post misleading. TFA specifically states .xlsx .docx .pptx etc are all still going to be available. Thus whats the big deal. See no issue dropping a format that was replaced over 5 years ago
1. Re:Who cares? by postbigbang · 2012-09-26 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Clickbait, in its more raw form. Worse, people voted it up to get here in the first place.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-26 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Workflows relying on formats. Some libraries can't handle {doc,xls,ppt}x files yet.
  So automation in lots of places might break.
3. Re:Who cares? by blind+biker · 2012-09-26 12:41 · Score: 2
  
  I save all my Office documents in the old format - .doc, .ppt, .xls. I do that for two reasons: backwards compatibility, which matters to some of my colleagues and international collaborators, and compatibility with the version of Office I have at home.
  I guess there are more people like me, that need to cooperate with people around the world, and cannot expect that everyone has paid the Microsoft tax recently.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
4. Re:Who cares? by thsths · 2012-09-26 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  > I save all my Office documents in the old format - .doc, .ppt, .xls. I do that for two reasons: backwards compatibility, which matters to some of my colleagues and international collaborators, and compatibility with the version of Office I have at home.
  You can get converters for all supported Office versions. And obviously you should not run an unsupported Office version if you exchange documents.
  LibreOffice may be a better reason: it is ok with the old document format up to a point, but it really struggles with the new format. Given that the new format has a much cleaner design, I think the problem is that nobody put the effort into making it work.
One of the nice things about open source by dkleinsc · 2012-09-26 08:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

You never, ever, lose a feature. At worst, the feature requires you to keep a really old version of a package around.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:One of the nice things about open source by 2starr · 2012-09-26 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  That is so not true. Gnome? Also, I challenge that never removing features is a good thing. One man's feature is another man's cruft.
  
  --
  "Let your heart soar as high as it will. Refuse to be average." - A. W. Tozer
2. Re:One of the nice things about open source by h4rr4r · 2012-09-26 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  So run an old kernel.
  The code is still available, feel free.
3. Re:One of the nice things about open source by dkleinsc · 2012-09-26 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you want Gnome 2, you can get it here:
  ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/desktop/2.91/2.91.2/sources/
  Yes, building it is a pain in the butt, but you can do it.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
4. Re:One of the nice things about open source by marcansoft · 2012-09-27 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  You try running Amarok 1.4 on a modern Linux distro.
  As much as it saddens me, yes, sometimes you do lose features with open source software.
Why drop functionality? by jandrese · 2012-09-26 08:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Was it expensive to maintain this functionality? It seems like the .doc format shouldn't be changing much these days, making it fairly cheap to keep around. Was the difficulty that Google is adding a bunch of features that aren't supported by those formats (doesn't seem likely?). Did they have to pay a licensing fee to Microsoft to use them? There must be a reason to remove them, simply deleting them because they're old doesn't make much sense, especially if people are still using them.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
1. Re:Why drop functionality? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-26 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Whenever Google does something weird, it's because of advertisers.
  Or so it seems. It's the only reason Google wants your "Real name" for example.
2. Re:Why drop functionality? by JDG1980 · 2012-09-26 09:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Was it expensive to maintain this functionality? It seems like the .doc format shouldn't be changing much these days, making it fairly cheap to keep around. Was the difficulty that Google is adding a bunch of features that aren't supported by those formats (doesn't seem likely?). Did they have to pay a licensing fee to Microsoft to use them? There must be a reason to remove them, simply deleting them because they're old doesn't make much sense, especially if people are still using them.
  I don't think there's a license fee. If there was, MS would have tried to go after the open-source implementations at some point in the past. In fact, I believe that a couple years ago, the European Union required MS to release documentation on their legacy binary Office formats to the public.
  What this is about, I suspect, is QA costs. Having these export formats means that every time substantial changes are made, the legacy export features must be tested. And they have to be tested with a substantial variety of documents to make sure nothing breaks, if Google wants to provide a solid experience. (Businesses would be very unhappy if they exported a PPT and the slides were all messed up because, say, one particular type of vector image wasn't properly ported back to legacy mode.) So Google can't just leave it in, since it might break at any time in the future, and as long as it stays in, it will suck up time and effort that could be spent on more important things. They decided that with everything from Office 2000 on up supporting the XML formats, it was time to pull the plug on legacy export. (Legacy import, AFAIK, should continue unaffected.)
3. Re:Why drop functionality? by aztracker1 · 2012-09-26 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed, the biggest issue was probably the incomplete implementation, as well as the complexity.. say what you will, but the .(doc|xls|*)x versions are at least easier to work with... though not *that* much.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
4. Re:Why drop functionality? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-09-26 09:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Was it expensive to maintain this functionality? It seems like the .doc format shouldn't be changing much these days, making it fairly cheap to keep around.
  Funny, this is the second time this week I've heard this question about Google. The answer is: Every time somebody makes a change to Docs, they have to test this format. Expensive? Who knows, but it is a cost.
  The real question is: Why is Google running around doing all this cost cutting?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
5. Re:Why drop functionality? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-09-26 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Every time somebody makes a change to Docs, they have to test this format.
  Uh, the point is that the doc format hasn't changed in 5 years. So there's no cost to maintain as is.
  Docs (as in Google Docs), not .doc.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
6. Re:Why drop functionality? by ERJ · 2012-09-26 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  In a wonderful, magical world of perfect programmers that would be true. Unfortunately, regressions are reality. Maybe google is changing their export class interfaces, or they looked at the fact that you can support docx format back to Office 2003 and decided the maintenance / QA effort was not worth it.
7. Re:Why drop functionality? by DragonWriter · 2012-09-27 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Was it expensive to maintain this functionality? It seems like the .doc format shouldn't be changing much these days, making it fairly cheap to keep around.
  
  The old Microsoft formats may not be changing, but GDocs features are, and when adding new features, you need to update the export filters to account for the new features (even, in many cases, for features that can't be exported to that format, since simply ignoring the feature won't always work.)
  So, if there's a relatively low perceived use of export in the old MS formats (which they can probably tell from usage data), it may make sense to drop the export filter rather than continue maintaining it.
Why? by lilfields · 2012-09-26 08:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is Google intentionally trying to get out of the Office business? Because this is a quick way out. Though I use Office 2013 beta, I still save documents in .doc often because a LOT of people save in the format for backwards compatibility. Then what about existing customers that have to have this function? What a stupid move. Apple botches maps and Nano, Google botches Office, Microsoft might have botched an OS. At least Apple and Microsoft can recover the business. Office software is a tough playing field with Microsoft's behemoth.
1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-26 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Is Google intentionally trying to get out of the Office business? Because this is a quick way out. Though I use Office 2013 beta, I still save documents in .doc often because a LOT of people save in the format for backwards compatibility. Then what about existing customers that have to have this function? What a stupid move. Apple botches maps and Nano, Google botches Office, Microsoft might have botched an OS. At least Apple and Microsoft can recover the business. Office software is a tough playing field with Microsoft's behemoth.
  Google docs has full support for ODF.
  I don't blame them for dropping old (although widely used) Microsoft doc formats. Blame the users/firms that volontarily lock themselves to the whims of Microsoft.
  As long as Google docs has support for pdf, ODF and RTF all is well.
  Sucks to be Microsoft whores.
Only OLD format, not current by Sandman1971 · 2012-09-26 08:59 · Score: 1

Google Docs is only dropping support for old formats (Office 97-2007). Old applications that haven't been patched in how long? No reasonable business that requires documents should still be running on those old versions anyways. You can only keep backwards compatibility for so long before things start to get bloated and buggy.

--
It's better to burn out than to fade away
1. Re:Only OLD format, not current by M0j0_j0j0 · 2012-09-26 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is they announce a functionality drop 1st October on the 26th of September.
2. Re:Only OLD format, not current by LinuxIsGarbage · 2012-09-26 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Office 2003, the last version that used .doc as the native format, will have extended support (security fixes) through till April 8, 2014.
Re:Shouldn't have used HOSTS file by Jeng · 2012-09-26 09:00 · Score: 1

Hey I understand trolling is fun and all, but can you change the address to one that doesn't actually exist?
I understand that the APK fellow might be a first class dickwad, but now you are acting like him.
Do you really want to be like APK?

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
The formats being ditched are Office 97-2003 by Qwavel · 2012-09-26 09:00 · Score: 5, Informative

A clarification has been posted: it is the Office 97-2003 (not 2003-2007) formats that are being dumped, and it is
Gotta say, though, that Google takes as much care with their blog posts as they do with their products: everything is beta.
Would be interested to know what the rationale is. Did they have to pay a licensing fee for these old proprietary formats? Or did they just want to stop supporting rather old, very proprietary formats of their competitor?
Note that they also recently announced that they are dropping IE8 support soon, so they are generally being very ruthless about culling out technologies. I guess I can forgive them that - supporting lots of old MS technologies must be painful.
1. Re:The formats being ditched are Office 97-2003 by jrumney · 2012-09-26 13:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What do upgrades to Office get you except the latest shiny icons and a lighter wallet? For crying out loud, it's office software!
  The *ahem* awesome bar. 'Nuff said.
2. Re:The formats being ditched are Office 97-2003 by thsths · 2012-09-26 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  > Interesting as my multi-national (70k +) corp still runs Office 2003
  And why exactly would they do that? Office 2010 is so much more functional, and a lot easier to use to. Word may not have changed all that much, but it has a new GUI and a good equation editor. PowerPoint has changed massively, from an ugly program to complete the package to something actually quite useful.
  I understand that you may want to wait with updates, and not do every version. But since Office 2010 has SP1, there is really no reason not to start upgrading. Plus of course the support is running out soon, and there should be time for an orderly conversion...
3. Re:The formats being ditched are Office 97-2003 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-27 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you take a non-technical user that has experience using Office 2003 changing the GUI going to Office 2010 does not make it easier to use. It creates confusion, support calls, and some level of retraining. Even moving menu items can create problems for end-users. And the argument for upgrading is what? Support patches? On a stable product that's functioning for ~ 10 years? rrrriiiggghhhttt....
4. Re:The formats being ditched are Office 97-2003 by jrumney · 2012-09-27 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, wrong stupid name for stupid interface change that noone wanted.
5. Re:The formats being ditched are Office 97-2003 by mcgrew · 2012-09-27 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  Word may not have changed all that much, but it has a new GUI
  Best reason I can think of NOT to upgrade. Change for increased functionality is a good thing, change for the sake of change is brain-dead stupid, it only slows down your workflow and decreases productivity.
  Office 2010 is so much more functional, and a lot easier to use to
  Um, trying to parse past your typo. Did you mean "a lot easier to use, too" or "a lot easier to get use to"? But at any rate, I keep hearing the same thing from MS fans and always ask and never am answered, HOW is it more functional and easier to use?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Re:Shouldn't have used HOSTS file by JayRott · 2012-09-26 09:01 · Score: 1

...... I think there is a nice place with men in white coats who would be more than happy to help you out with your problems, sir. Hell, maybe they'll let you play some "Shutter Island."
doesn't this also apply to closed source? by logicassasin · 2012-09-26 09:04 · Score: 1

If Microsoft were to drop support for older formats today, couldn't I simply install an older version of Office to get that unsupported format?
Just seems to make sense to me, especially when I have Office 2003 installed on my Win7-64bit laptop (along with the Office format convertor to get newer format compatibility).

--
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
1. Re:doesn't this also apply to closed source? by albeit+unknown · 2012-09-26 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  You may not have the licenses around to legally do so, particularly in a business environment where you may have hired more people over time. This is not an issue with open source.
90% of the misunderstanding you mean by trolling? by poetmatt · 2012-09-26 09:12 · Score: 2

Considering that you can still put microsoft docs into google docs, this isn't a change. They're just not sending it back out into those formats - which also means converting documents which weren't microsoft docs, into microsoft docs. The issue here is relying on Microsoft products, not a fault of google's.
Re:Shouldn't have used HOSTS file by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-26 09:12 · Score: 1

Google for "Alexander Peter Kowalski".
Could Work Out by RazorSharp · 2012-09-26 09:16 · Score: 2

Now that MS Word utilizes OpenDocument, perhaps it can now begin to replace the .doc/.docx formats. I'm not really sure how many people use Google docs (I've heard quite a few do, I don't know how they do it), but if they have a sizable chunk of users it could work like the reverse of Microsoft's formats in the past. "Save that in .odt because everything reads .odt."
It's kind of risky on Google's part, but if they succeed they'll break Microsoft's key stranglehold on the whole text editing market. Let's face it, it's ridiculous that such a basic piece of software as MS Office not only sells at the outrageous price they have it at, but is also considered mandatory by most computer users who use their computer for actual work.
LibreOffice and its derivatives are bound to win eventually (it keeps improving and will always be free), but the process is extremely slow. It's nice to see Google attempt to cut off Word's life support, which is format lock. LibreOffice Writer is at the point where it could make Word irrelevant - LibreOffice just won't bury the Office suite until Calc catches up with Excel.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
1. Re:Could Work Out by jon3k · 2012-09-26 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Google is just discontinuing exporting to XLS, DOC, etc (2003/XP and prior format). They still support exporting to XLSX/DOCX.
2. Re:Could Work Out by jrumney · 2012-09-26 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  2) Impress (the slideshow part of LibreOffice) is also going to need MASSIVE improvement before it will even be able to find the city that Powerpoint's ballpark is in. At the moment, you can't even use Impress for presentations with math equations...
  Math equations are TeX's ballbark, not Powerpoint's. Impress does seem like it's the unfinished work of a single person scratching an itch over a single weekend though. I tried to use it once with my son for his "create a presentation in powerpoint" homework; it crashed when we tried to create the third slide in the sequence, and we hadn't even added any graphics yet - it was just a few lines of English text on each slide. Compared with the rest of OpenOffice, it is a huge disappointment.
3. Re:Could Work Out by clodney · 2012-09-26 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's kind of risky on Google's part, but if they succeed they'll break Microsoft's key stranglehold on the whole text editing market. Let's face it, it's ridiculous that such a basic piece of software as MS Office not only sells at the outrageous price they have it at, but is also considered mandatory by most computer users who use their computer for actual work.
  Reducing Office suites to text editing is ridiculous. For most people in an office setting, Word, Excel and PowerPoint are utterly core technologies, and spending a few hundred dollars per seat is a complete non-factor for any medium to large business.
  If Unix ran MS-Office, I that many businesses would find it easier to switch away from Windows but still keep Office.
Re:I dont trust Google with my documents by Jeng · 2012-09-26 09:20 · Score: 3, Funny

I don't trust Google with my documents anyways. Who knows what they will try to do with that information!

Display relevant ads?

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Another winning editorial by marcovje · 2012-09-26 09:24 · Score: 1

Maybe, but I'll be the one deciding to upgrade, not google.
Re:90% of the misunderstanding you mean by trollin by obarthelemy · 2012-09-26 09:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Indeed. Only that won't change because Google decide overnight to change the filters they support. What is changing is the trust we can have in online providers not swiping the carpet from under our feet overnight. See my .sig.

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Re:Shouldn't have used HOSTS file by Inda · 2012-09-26 09:31 · Score: 1

Gee thanks for that.

Why would a troll post as AC here and then leave a trail?

http://www.jaylittle.com/

The wedding photos made me smile.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Great move, Google by water-and-sewer · 2012-09-26 09:32 · Score: 1

As someone who follows corporate strategy a bit and who is enjoying watching Apple, Google, and to a lesser extent Microsoft slug it out, this is a move that makes sense. And I love to see anything that reduces the intoxication people have with Microsoft formats. Dependence on compatibility with Microsoft formats has set computing back by a decade - and the fight continues.
On the other hand, as a consumer and someone who's very wary of getting locked in, I've gotta say, that's a Dick Move. (http://dictatorshandbook.net/memes/dmb.jpg/)

--
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
1. Re:Great move, Google by Billly+Gates · 2012-09-26 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not where I work. We are now evaluating Office 365 seriously as we still use IE 7 and are paying big bucks to now move to 8. Both which Google is giving a finger too.
  Business #1, the customer is always right. We dictate beowser support and office formats. Its Googles job to comply if they want our business. I guess not.
  Ancient IE and Office IT standardized a decade ago. Conplain all you want but that is the standard. Corps wont change
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
Re:Shouldn't have used HOSTS file by Pieroxy · 2012-09-26 09:36 · Score: 1

Have you heard of Trolls? They are strange creatures posting stupid, unrelated, offtopic of offensive comments in public forums such as Slashdot. Just for the sake of it. Yes, some people apparently have nothing better to do than this. For reference, this stuff is posted in every Slashdot story for a while now.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Can't use Google Docs regardless of the formats by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-26 09:41 · Score: 1

They switched Google Docs to Google Drive earlier this week, and now my office firewall prohibits me from accessing Google Drive. It says that Google Drive is a type of "personal storage" site and it bans that category of sites.
Re:90% of the misunderstanding you mean by trollin by icebike · 2012-09-26 09:47 · Score: 1

Very Valid point.
If I was paying for this, I'd be pretty upset. (I am paying for it, just not with money).
The filters were in-hand already, and there was little point in dropping them.
Warn agains incompatibilities where necessary, but why drop them all together.?
They can still import these old formats, but can no longer turn around and export them in the same format.
That might make sense if they were adding a ton of functionality to documents in Google Docs, but it has always
seemed to me to be a pretty limited subset of what even the Older MS Office suites could do.
I can't imagine Microsoft has totally clean hands in this decision. They may have yanked any licenses Google had
for the export functionality. Forces office suite upgrades.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Not a huge deal, really by asmkm22 · 2012-09-26 09:52 · Score: 1

Microsoft would love to get rid of the older formats anyway, so I see this as a step forward. If your business is so cheap that they've avoided upgrading to 2007 or 2010, and still refused to upgrade to 2013, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Seriously, you've gotten 10+ years out of your software, so stop complaining.
why dont they just add an ad for Office365? by Billly+Gates · 2012-09-26 10:00 · Score: 1

First no IE 6 support, now they are dropping IE 8 and consequiently XP as only IE is enterprise grade. To now this?!
Don't give me crap that its because html 5 is so much capable. Have any of their engineers had a feal job before Google? Or are they fresh cs grads out of college? Corporate America has too much invested to just adopt and be hip without a business case on why upgrading can help raise the share price. Infact MBA wisdom shows it as an unneccesary cost that doesnt add value.
Maybe I should give the ms sales rep a call? All Google is doing is pushing these users to Office 365! Not freeing them.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Shouldn't have used HOSTS file by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-26 10:12 · Score: 1

That didn't make things very much clearer, vis a vis the GGP.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Another winning editorial by Billly+Gates · 2012-09-26 10:12 · Score: 1

Users hate the ribbon and would freak out and fire me if I put it on their desktops. Office 2k3 runs fine so why upgrade?

--
http://saveie6.com/
Peril by fm6 · 2012-09-26 10:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Not a peril of cloud computing. This is a peril of outsourced cloud-based applications. That leaves you at the mercy of the outsourcee. If you manage the cloud application yourself (license it and deploy it on your own private or public cloud) you still control it.
Anyway, what's the big deal? Why would somebody on Google Docs need to import or export a .doc file? The .docx format has been the default since Word 2007, and MS provides filters for this format for all versions of Word back to Word 2000. So if you're sharing documents with somebody, and they can't handle .docx files, somebody needs to tell them that Bill Clinton is no longer president.
1. Re:Peril by david_thornley · 2012-09-27 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  The big deal is the other people you deal with, who may specify a .doc format. When they do that, you comply or don't do business with them. Most businesses are better off not firing customers just because they aren't keeping up with you technologically.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
2. Re:Peril by fm6 · 2012-09-27 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  OK, that's a good point. But if I were working for a company that only used Google Docs (which I have to admit I'm not a big fan of) and I had a customer that was still using Office 2003 and thus couldn't handle docx, pptx, or xslx, I'd have three choices:
  — Tell management that they blew it when they chose Google Docs and demand that they switch to MS Office.
  — Complain to Google for dropping support for doc, ppt, xls import/export.
  — Talk to the customer about installing the free MS filters that allow them to read and write docx, pptx, and xslx files.
  Now, which of these strategies, in your opinion, is most likely to be productive?
3. Re:Peril by WuphonsReach · 2012-09-27 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Talk to the customer about installing the free MS filters that allow them to read and write docx, pptx, and xslx files.
  
  And pray that the filters work, without having to run in admin mode all the time.
  
  The "free" filter is only free if your support time is worthless. About half the time we couldn't get it to work reliably out of the box on limited right users.
  
  --
  Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
4. Re:Peril by fm6 · 2012-09-27 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I give up. It's perfectly true that if you use Google Docs, this change will screw you over for sharing docs with customers who use Office 2003. So now the question becomes: how many of your customers are still stuck on a decade-old version of Office? One that won't even run on any system manufactured in the last couple of years.
Awfully short notice by Lonewolf666 · 2012-09-26 10:26 · Score: 2

So they announce on the 25th of September that they will kill exporting to $OLDFORMAT in the 1st of October?
No matter what you think of the format as such, that is going to blindside a few users. I think changes like that should be announced at least two months ago, not five days.

--
C - the footgun of programming languages
Re:Another winning editorial by jon3k · 2012-09-26 10:55 · Score: 1

The best part is, you can use Microsoft's FREE office document converter to view the new formats seamlessly in Office 2003/XP.
Re:Another winning editorial by jon3k · 2012-09-26 10:56 · Score: 1

By all means, and in the interim you can use the free office converter in 2003 to view the new formats, which you should have done about 5 years ago when Office 2007 was launched.
Guys export TO .doc is out, not import. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-26 10:58 · Score: 1

The way I read the google decision, you can still import files in .doc format. Only you can't save it in the older version of the doc format. I am not sure what the older version is, pre 1997 or pre 2003.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Terminology confusion. Import = upload. Export=dow by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-26 11:03 · Score: 1

When you use google doc or an online doc tool, importing documents would be called "uploading". The file on your disk is uploaded into google doc. Once it is in google, doc you could keep it in google doc format in the cloud. Or at some point you want to export it back to your disk. That will be downloading. Google is removing the ability to export google docs to pre 2003 (or pre1997 not very clear) versions of the doc file format. You can continue to import/upload doc files into google docs. The ability to be backward compatible is not compromised or removed.
Only thing you can't do is if you download a google doc in into a .doc file, your old pre 2003 version of MS-Word may not be able to read it correctly. That is all.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You can set your default create type to .doc... by dlamming · 2012-09-26 11:42 · Score: 1

At my workplace, the default office install on all new machines deliberately sets the default Office Save types to .doc, .xls, and .ppt because people want that compatibility when exchanging files with colleagues and coworkers around the globe. So it's not just people who haven't upgraded that want to save and create files in .doc
If this applies to Google Drive as well, I am so out of there.

--
Not only am I a scientist, I play one on TV
Yes, need, really. by dpbsmith · 2012-09-26 11:57 · Score: 1

I am glad that it works "like a charm" for you on "the majority" of documents. Could you tell us what, exactly, it does for you on the minority?
I downloaded the no-cost XML converter from Microsoft for my Mac some years ago, for the excellent reason that they hadn't produced a version of Word that supported .docx yet. My experience was that at least half the time, it would run for many minutes trying to convert a document and then crash. These were not long documents, and I was never able to characterize what things about a document caused the crash. The conversions were always slow, like minutes, even when successful. And when the documents did convert, I often found that there were unacceptable formatting problems.
I found that NeoOffice--then the most appropriate Mac version of OpenOffice, was faster and more reliable at opening .docx files--and then saving them in .doc format--but it, too, often had formatting compatibility issues.

--
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Meh by pkinetics · 2012-09-26 11:59 · Score: 1

If I have people who do not have docx, xlsx, etc support, I just grant them read only access to the online doc.
Everyone else can read the newer formats with whatever Office package environment they are in.
Nonissue for me and my kin
Huge setback by abhi2012 · 2012-09-26 12:40 · Score: 1

That's a huge setback. Like it or not most offices use Microsoft Office and if I had to save that all important excel sheet on the cloud because I'd like to edit it on the go, it would be totally useless if I can't export it to a MS Office suitable format.
Incompatible w/Libre Office? by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-09-26 15:19 · Score: 1

Are you or your customers still running Office 97?
I'm using Ubuntu Oneric w/ Libre Office 3.4.4 (which is what was distributed with it). I'm in the middle of a distance learning course so there's no way I'm about to upgrade right now.
I discovered, when attempting to modify a critical document, that this version of Libre Office could import it, edit it, and write it out. Once. But if I tried to import the modified document for another edit, Libre Office would hang. I worked around by converting the document to the Windows 97 version of .doc, which worked just fine.
If I'd had any data stored with google I'd likely have been seriously hosed. While the workaround would work, since it's a "hang on SECOND edit" bug I could easily have ended up with corrupted documents.
= = = = =
Giving people one week's notice before removing a substantial feature which may be critical for some users' processes is irresponsible. This is the kind of thing that needs months of notice for migration planning and execution. I think customers' trust in Google's services, and cloud computing in general, is about to take a substantial hit.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Re:Incompatible w/Libre Office? by metamatic · 2012-09-28 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm using Ubuntu Oneric w/ Libre Office 3.4.4 (which is what was distributed with it).
  In which case, this problem does not affect you. Import and export of OpenDocument from Google Docs is unaffected.
  
  --
  GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I ditched Google docs long ago by elabs · 2012-09-26 15:48 · Score: 1

... so they can do what they want. It doesn't affect me.
As a fan of backward compatibility, I'm going meh by Linnen · 2012-09-27 00:59 · Score: 1

Not certain how big a deal this is. Even MS Office 2013 is not fully compatible with Office 2003-2007 format documents.
Google docs just gets worse, and worse by walterbyrd · 2012-09-27 02:44 · Score: 1

I hate to say it. I ever have a certification in Google Apps. But Google the quality, and features, or everything except gmail, is just awful, and keeps getting worse.
Boo! by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-27 06:55 · Score: 1

"Google today announced... [that] As of October 1, users will no longer have the ability to download documents, spreadsheets, and presentations in old Microsoft Office formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt)."
Boo! Hisss!

--
THINK! It's patriotic
RTFA, or, "export" is different than "read" by DragonWriter · 2012-09-27 09:03 · Score: 1

Customers send doc files and expect you to read them since almost everyone else uses Office. Sending a reply back to your clients or people at other companies saying, "Hey, install this addon and send it back in DOCX format" will only make *you* seem to be incompetent and a waster of time compared to your competition using MS Office.
That's a nice complaint, but could you please explain to me precisely how it is relevant to Google announced removal of the option to export files from Google Docs in the legacy Microsoft Office formats while explicitly retaining existing import functionality for "Microsoft Office files of any format"?

If you need to purchase a copy of Office to read the old formats anyway, you might as well not go the Google Apps route at all.
"Read" and "export" aren't the same thing, at all.