IE 5.5 has less than 1/10 th of the market. IE might make up the majority of browsers, but the versions are not consistent and each requires it's own work arounds. You are better off coding for or installing Firefox as far as market share goes. They can put that on the CD without causing problems and have something that works on 100% of their customer's computers.
Obviously this is Microsoft's doing. It couldn't possibly be that the ISP in question are run by idiots, are willing to save any money any way they can by only supporting the most popular browser in their ignorance and greed.
M$ does pressure ISPs to do dumb things. If you think M$ does not have the ability to harm Comcast with an "update", you are sadly deluded. Cox people have told me that M$, AOL and other lean on them to block ports and do other dumb things.
Now why is insisting on IE 5.5 insanely stupid? Let's count the ways:
Minority market share.As low as 1.5% Firefox is as good as any single browser now.
It's easier and quicker and more reliable to tech the techs standards and have a small number of scripts than it to read one long wrong one. On the phone, time is money. The script for gnu/linux would take less than two minutes.
The result of getting it wrong is a service that does not work. IE 5.5 only is ISP suicide.
Hackers only targeted a limited group of personal computers, which kept traffic down and allowed them to stay under the radar of security police who tend to identify threats when activity reaches a certain level.
In this case, we are safe assuming "personal computers" == Windoze. Big dumb companies put that crap on people's deskstop.
The lesson learned again is that corporate security is only as strong as it's weakest link. If you let Windoze retrieve your data you have no secrets.
Why do you think your hypothetical scenario should be taken as "evidence"?
There's nothing hypothetical about the SCO case or M$'s "everyone else does the bad things we do but worse" FUD. Those things are well a established pattern or abuse. No one should give their money, even indirectly, to such a company regardless of what they have to offer but what M$ has to offer is all third rate.
The ultimate reason for users and developers to abandon non free software is it's inherent dishonesty, which makes it possible to commit M$ style abuses. They won't tell you how it works, so it could be doing anything. This leaves anyone developing non free software open to the charges and anyone using it is a potential victim. Secrets stink.
We can only hope that this makes it into an early service pack for Vista, and that Microsoft announces it poorly, resulting wholesale defection of their corporate user-base to Apple and Linux-based desktops.
We can only hope this is what Ballmer means by M$ services. The whole crapware industry that Softies point to when it comes to Dell selling gnu/linux is prior art, but that has never kept M$ from claiming invention.
A more disturbing possibility is they only obviously implement this on crappy free ware versions of Windoze and then claim Google is violating their patents. This would be both a FUD and judicial assault, much like the SCO case. They will, of course, continue the worst practices themselves while claiming innocence and smearing everyone else.
Does anyone need more evidence to abandon non free software?
Even OASIS doesn't agree with you, as they've already set up 2 working groups to address the incompleteness of it.... legacy documents from Microsoft, Word Perfect, Lotus, and others, which is a HUGE problem for anyone that will want to convert their archive of documents to an open standard.
The problems of access you talk about are the main reason to immediately stop storing things in M$ formats. The only people who know M$ secrets are M$, but not even they can untangle the mess they made. I've heard people say that Open Office is better than M$ Office for opening older M$ documents. The more M$ you store, the worse it gets and this is why ODF exists.
I've been exchanging MSO2007 documents for six months with Office 2003 users. With no problems at all. It's like I live in this parallel dimension where everything you claim doesn't work actually does.
Let's just say that you and I have different definitions of "works". I should have expected you'd be one of those paying $400 to be the thin edge of the M$ new format wedge. The people you work with must hate you.
It's like eating a whole stick of butter with mayonnaise to dip it in. MS "richness" can't be good for you.
It makes you think of "Super Size Me" doesn't it?
The only thing OOXML does for M$ that ODF won't is make M$ rich.
There's nothing really new here. M$ has issuing the same bullshit about translators and "different purposes" for months. They won't ever tell you what their different purpose is, of course, or what good translation that will never be perfect is. They just blather on about how "rich" OOXML is. M$ nonsense is never more obvious than when they are trying to force the market into their next generation of M$ only crap.
Fewer people are believing them. Lots of people grudgingly moved to 98 when forced. I can't print what they thought when forced from Word Perfect to Word. When XP rolled out, I was amazed to actually hear someone blithering M$ party line about how "XP was based on the NT kernel, so it's like solid." I have not heard anything but negative comments about Vista and Office 2007. Still, I'm sure there are a few softies that must have M$ and will cling to it at any cost.
It's merely the result of some poor sod documenting the Office formats, which are essentially dumps of the programs' internal state. What you see is merely the consequence of the fact that Office is held together with spit, bailing wire, and the curséd blood of sacrificed Microsoft H1-b programmers.
No, it's ugly because M$ has been playing this game forever. Office 2007 does not export to systems before Office 2007 is because it can't and it won't export well to any other system but it's own. M$ is going to play this game as long as people fall for it. Corrupting standards bodies is part of making people believe that this time they've changed. If they wanted to do something good for their customers they would be using ODF, which is a complete, reasonable and free standard.
There's no enforement body - that's the difference between the law and a standard.
No. Standards are supposed to reflect and guide best practice. Laws codify people's morals.
Both should be ethically produced and neither is supposed to be sold. M$ has it's ugly hands corrupting both for their purposes at everyone else's expense.
This is a typical non-free cluster fuck, with a heavy leaning on the Cisco side. LSU's Wireless has adopted some stupid new "security" feature that won't even talk to iPhone. It's also causing lots of other problems, even with the wired network. On Windoze, the client deletes Firefox settings which requires lots work by lab owners. Printers have been iffy since roll out and today it knocked out the whole building all morning.
I get the feeling this was planned long ago to help push the Vista upgrade train along. There is no client software for Windoze 98, gnu/linux users are inconvenienced and Apple users get some kind of half ass support that does not include iPhone. The default page for sign on is now that crappy Windoze advertisement, which tells you all about how to set up your "outblaze" Outlook.
The reason it got used at LSU? Federal wiretap laws and poor budgeting.
No real security is going to be gained. Insecure sites will still be interceptable on the much larger internet and Windoze botnets will have no problems negotiating the new crappy network.
Like all digital restrictions, it's a con.
on
Zune DRM Cracked
·
· Score: 0, Troll
The difference with the Zune's DRM is that it effectively allows music "rentals" through WiFi sharing. People can "squirt" each other a song then remove the DRM, effectively getting the song for free. Not much different than pirating off of p2p networks, but it does mean Microsoft has created an incredibly effective piracy device.
A 20 foot radius sharing device is more effective than the internet? You might as well just carry a USB drive and swap that way.
This is a con as old as M$'s involvement in digital music players that has yet to sell players. Do you know anyone who's gotten their rented music out of a Dell Jukebox or any other "Plays for Sure" player? I don't. At the same time I do know people who have programs that share their iPod by wireless and P2P offers anyone whatever they want if they don't just go and get legal, free music.
Big and Old Con that Never has Worked.
on
Zune DRM Cracked
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it might even increase sales, which all goes to show how DRM isn't good for hardware sales.
I doubt anyone will buy a Zune over this. A few might but it's just as big a con as the "get paid for sharing pirated music" story next to it. The bait is that you will use some kind of M$ subscription to build a music collection, then liberate it. The problems are that WMA is shit and M$ will break it. The same scheme has been available for previous generations of Windoze DRM players and all of them have been dismal flops. There are far cheaper and easier ways to build a music collection than buying a Zune. People's aversion to rented music is so great that they would rather buy CDs than risk the same money on a scheme that may or may not work. Shame on M$ for promoting behavior they claim to abhor.
if they don't fix it, it is still me that suffers. This is a case where I can't choose to just "use another vendor", unfortunately.
I'm sorry to hear that. You might try IE under Crossover Office or XP under Parallels. If that does not work, you need to have an XP box in the corner.
That bar is getting lower by the minute. Just wait until Google starts throwing its IP weight around.
OK, I'll put that right under a few other things I'm supposed to be waiting for:
BSD *nix are dying. As long as there has been Microsoft OS. Twenty years of waiting. They did manage to kill SCO Unix but buy outs don't count.
Mac is going to get virused/wormed out, just like DOS. Twenty years of waiting.
Netscape to be as insecure as IE. Ten years of waiting.
GNU/Linux is the next can o-worms. Yawn, ten to fifteen years.
All of the above is usually said in hushed tones by people deep into M$ stuff. It's often accompanied by statements like, "Microsoft is really taking their gloves off now," as if M$ might secretly aid such efforts. Bad Things, but all FUD from a company that good for little else.
Who would want to use a machine without a PIII or higher chip in the first place.
I think you mean "lower".
There are lots of nice laptops with PII and PIII class chips in them and they really are all you need if you are using GNU/Linux. My best laptops are 1 GHz PIIIs and Etch works great on them. My favorite laptop is still a Thinkpad 600. It has a 233 MHz PII and 300MB of RAM. Etch works great on it. Sound works, and I can watch movies with it. It's a little old for number crunching and it's a lot heavier than an X30, but it's low power enough for me to use in my lap without getting burnt.
You're telling me I want to go back to IE 4 all of the sudden?
Dillo would be easier. As a bonus it has tabs and better rendering. Both, however, have fewer digital restrictions and would be preferable to the terms of use of IE7.
Firefox, of course, offers better rendering, more user customization, ease of use, security and hardware choice than IE7. Combined with GNU/Linux, you can install Firefox on just about any computer without loss of modern web standards, flash and all that. IE7 is PIII and above because it only works with XP and Vista. With IE7 you are stuck with the choice of seven year old software that has to be patched and still sucks or software that barely runs on the latest and greatest multicored watt burner.
What's its problem? I'm not sure, let's see!
Does it not browse the web? Yes, but so does Dillo.
Is it insecure? Yes. With special mechanisms like BHO and sabotaged java engine it's unsafe at any site.
Is it unstable? Yes, using it means you get to wipe and reload your computer once a month.
Is it unpleasant to use? Oh God, yes. Even when you don't consider the obtrusive OS it requires, the lack of features is glaring.
Does it lack features? Try Firefox or Konqueror for a while.
Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? No, only M$ has the source.
Is it poorly programmed? I think the above answers this question.
Why are you so f*****g picky?
I'm not. Why are you so fucking stupid?
The most annoying thing about IE is that it's tied to a DRM'd asspain. It will auto install all sorts of malware along with "security" applications from Sony and others. The impossible and stupid goal of these programs is to keep you from making copies. IE is the browser of slaves.
My rate of failure these days is less than one percent. It's very rare to find a site that I NEED that is IE only.
I do wish there was a version of Firefox/Mozilla that had an IE-compatibility mode... "FireIE Fox" or something, for use in such cases.
Fortunately, another few broken sites finally "saw the light", probably due to complaints from people like us, and fixed things.
It's better to complain and get the issue fixed than it is to waste time on the endless task of chasing M$'s tail. The great thing about Firefox use is that it punishes people who blindly set up M$ servers or carelessly cater to IE. It's foolish for a company to turn away 1/10 of their customers but suicidal to turn away 1/4 or 1/2.
M$ can't win this one. Their browser is harder to use and less secure. The only thing it has going is the few sites you have noticed but those are bad for the business that runs them.
How are new formats designed to make sure people buy a new word processor when Microsoft release compatibility packs for older versions so they can open the new formats?
Because the "compatibility packs" are never perfect and usually work best as translators into the new format. The ultimate cost of their making money is you doing more work. This is why their supposedly "open" xml format specification has goofey things like, "do this exactly like Word 5 for Mac" without further advice. Their formats never were portable because they never have cared about your effort.
So you can choose if you want the backward compatible version or the new version, and it is easy to know what you chose. Currently we have a some Office 2007 at work but mostly Office 2003. No problems thus far, as the 2007 people know to keep using the old formats and everyone is happy.
The menu for types is confusing and makes interchange a PITA. There are three options, "default", "Office97-2003" and "other". If this version is like all of the rest, conversion is one way - in but not out - and 97-2003 will be a mess. The other formats are way too confusing for the average user with multiple types defined for the same version of word processor name. Once you get past all of that, you have Vista's default behavior of hiding file extensions to keep you from knowing which file is what.
All of this confusion and complexity has one aim: to make sure people buy a new M$ word processor every few years. The file formats change around to keep other programs from being able to use them. The new formats themselves are used to force others to buy Word. This routine has worked several times.
The only real question is how many times can M$ pull the old switcheroo before people revolt. It's such a transparent rip off.
They were only "protecting consumers" so they could have them for themselves. Their goal has always been to be the man in the middle who collects all the fees. The Digital Restrictions in Vista are the end game, their open declaration of anti-competition on "their" platform.
Of course Linux is a target and they have been attacking other operating systems forever. DRDOS, OS/2 and Netscape are prime examples. Free Software has also been a target and the same tactics are used. Their attacks on free software do not end with their loud "get the facts" and othe smear campaigns and SCO attacks. There's also technical sabotage and everything they have a hand in is evil. They set up BIOS non standards like ACPI, to not run with free software. Winmodems are still a significant impediment as a large percentage of the frugal market for GNU/Linux users are also dail up users. M$ has even attacked the ogg vorbis music format by forbidding it's use in the majority of music players. Their interference with email standards should be seen in the same vein. Everything they do is designed to perpetuate their early 90s market position.
He has the music there, if we have similar playing devices, when not let me cherry pick a few songs off his immediately, then 3 days later when I'm syncing ask if I want to buy them? I get the music legally, after a few days free use, the IP holder gets their due...
Once you pay the Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane. M$'s rent a music schemes are not a one time payment, and they will try to push everyone into it. Do you think they will pay the RIAA or artists what's fair? Yeah, right.
An alternative you left out is that artists adopt other methods of promoting themselves that don't involve suing people. That way, you get to trade as much of your friend's collection as you want. The artist gets promoted and everyone wins, except the mafiaa.
Seriously, in the grand scheme of things, with people downloading tracks from p2p networks and ripping their own CDs, is this going to make an impact whatsoever?
The impact of this scheme is limited by poor sales of the Zune. While Apple was able to sell half a million iPhones on it's first weekend, Zune missed it's million player target last month. People don't want a music player that "squirts" expiring music. Part of the reason is because they don't really care to share their music like the MAFIAA thinks they do. The other part of poor Zune sales is that people want to own, not rent, the music they have. They continue to purchase and rip CDs and that is still the major source of people's music collections despite abundant, legal and free music on line. Because of this, they can put up with iPod's lame sharing capability but think very dimly of Zune's ability to disappear music.
M$ can keep their crappy patent - no one is going to buy a device that implements it.
Slashdot Mirror
IE 5.5 has less than 1/10 th of the market. IE might make up the majority of browsers, but the versions are not consistent and each requires it's own work arounds. You are better off coding for or installing Firefox as far as market share goes. They can put that on the CD without causing problems and have something that works on 100% of their customer's computers.
Obviously this is Microsoft's doing. It couldn't possibly be that the ISP in question are run by idiots, are willing to save any money any way they can by only supporting the most popular browser in their ignorance and greed.
M$ does pressure ISPs to do dumb things. If you think M$ does not have the ability to harm Comcast with an "update", you are sadly deluded. Cox people have told me that M$, AOL and other lean on them to block ports and do other dumb things.
Now why is insisting on IE 5.5 insanely stupid? Let's count the ways:
Doing what M$ tells you is like drinking Jim Jone's cool aid. It's not in your best interest and you won't be going to heaven.
FTFA:
In this case, we are safe assuming "personal computers" == Windoze. Big dumb companies put that crap on people's deskstop.
The lesson learned again is that corporate security is only as strong as it's weakest link. If you let Windoze retrieve your data you have no secrets.
Why do you think your hypothetical scenario should be taken as "evidence"?
There's nothing hypothetical about the SCO case or M$'s "everyone else does the bad things we do but worse" FUD. Those things are well a established pattern or abuse. No one should give their money, even indirectly, to such a company regardless of what they have to offer but what M$ has to offer is all third rate.
The ultimate reason for users and developers to abandon non free software is it's inherent dishonesty, which makes it possible to commit M$ style abuses. They won't tell you how it works, so it could be doing anything. This leaves anyone developing non free software open to the charges and anyone using it is a potential victim. Secrets stink.
We can only hope that this makes it into an early service pack for Vista, and that Microsoft announces it poorly, resulting wholesale defection of their corporate user-base to Apple and Linux-based desktops.
We can only hope this is what Ballmer means by M$ services. The whole crapware industry that Softies point to when it comes to Dell selling gnu/linux is prior art, but that has never kept M$ from claiming invention.
A more disturbing possibility is they only obviously implement this on crappy free ware versions of Windoze and then claim Google is violating their patents. This would be both a FUD and judicial assault, much like the SCO case. They will, of course, continue the worst practices themselves while claiming innocence and smearing everyone else.
Does anyone need more evidence to abandon non free software?
Even OASIS doesn't agree with you, as they've already set up 2 working groups to address the incompleteness of it .... legacy documents from Microsoft, Word Perfect, Lotus, and others, which is a HUGE problem for anyone that will want to convert their archive of documents to an open standard.
The problems of access you talk about are the main reason to immediately stop storing things in M$ formats. The only people who know M$ secrets are M$, but not even they can untangle the mess they made. I've heard people say that Open Office is better than M$ Office for opening older M$ documents. The more M$ you store, the worse it gets and this is why ODF exists.
I've been exchanging MSO2007 documents for six months with Office 2003 users. With no problems at all. It's like I live in this parallel dimension where everything you claim doesn't work actually does.
Let's just say that you and I have different definitions of "works". I should have expected you'd be one of those paying $400 to be the thin edge of the M$ new format wedge. The people you work with must hate you.
It's like eating a whole stick of butter with mayonnaise to dip it in. MS "richness" can't be good for you.
It makes you think of "Super Size Me" doesn't it?
The only thing OOXML does for M$ that ODF won't is make M$ rich.
There's nothing really new here. M$ has issuing the same bullshit about translators and "different purposes" for months. They won't ever tell you what their different purpose is, of course, or what good translation that will never be perfect is. They just blather on about how "rich" OOXML is. M$ nonsense is never more obvious than when they are trying to force the market into their next generation of M$ only crap.
Fewer people are believing them. Lots of people grudgingly moved to 98 when forced. I can't print what they thought when forced from Word Perfect to Word. When XP rolled out, I was amazed to actually hear someone blithering M$ party line about how "XP was based on the NT kernel, so it's like solid." I have not heard anything but negative comments about Vista and Office 2007. Still, I'm sure there are a few softies that must have M$ and will cling to it at any cost.
Zunenberg.
It's merely the result of some poor sod documenting the Office formats, which are essentially dumps of the programs' internal state. What you see is merely the consequence of the fact that Office is held together with spit, bailing wire, and the curséd blood of sacrificed Microsoft H1-b programmers.
No, it's ugly because M$ has been playing this game forever. Office 2007 does not export to systems before Office 2007 is because it can't and it won't export well to any other system but it's own. M$ is going to play this game as long as people fall for it. Corrupting standards bodies is part of making people believe that this time they've changed. If they wanted to do something good for their customers they would be using ODF, which is a complete, reasonable and free standard.
There's no enforement body - that's the difference between the law and a standard.
No. Standards are supposed to reflect and guide best practice. Laws codify people's morals.
Both should be ethically produced and neither is supposed to be sold. M$ has it's ugly hands corrupting both for their purposes at everyone else's expense.
This is a typical non-free cluster fuck, with a heavy leaning on the Cisco side. LSU's Wireless has adopted some stupid new "security" feature that won't even talk to iPhone. It's also causing lots of other problems, even with the wired network. On Windoze, the client deletes Firefox settings which requires lots work by lab owners. Printers have been iffy since roll out and today it knocked out the whole building all morning.
I get the feeling this was planned long ago to help push the Vista upgrade train along. There is no client software for Windoze 98, gnu/linux users are inconvenienced and Apple users get some kind of half ass support that does not include iPhone. The default page for sign on is now that crappy Windoze advertisement, which tells you all about how to set up your "outblaze" Outlook.
The reason it got used at LSU? Federal wiretap laws and poor budgeting.
No real security is going to be gained. Insecure sites will still be interceptable on the much larger internet and Windoze botnets will have no problems negotiating the new crappy network.
The difference with the Zune's DRM is that it effectively allows music "rentals" through WiFi sharing. People can "squirt" each other a song then remove the DRM, effectively getting the song for free. Not much different than pirating off of p2p networks, but it does mean Microsoft has created an incredibly effective piracy device.
A 20 foot radius sharing device is more effective than the internet? You might as well just carry a USB drive and swap that way.
This is a con as old as M$'s involvement in digital music players that has yet to sell players. Do you know anyone who's gotten their rented music out of a Dell Jukebox or any other "Plays for Sure" player? I don't. At the same time I do know people who have programs that share their iPod by wireless and P2P offers anyone whatever they want if they don't just go and get legal, free music.
Actually, it might even increase sales, which all goes to show how DRM isn't good for hardware sales.
I doubt anyone will buy a Zune over this. A few might but it's just as big a con as the "get paid for sharing pirated music" story next to it. The bait is that you will use some kind of M$ subscription to build a music collection, then liberate it. The problems are that WMA is shit and M$ will break it. The same scheme has been available for previous generations of Windoze DRM players and all of them have been dismal flops. There are far cheaper and easier ways to build a music collection than buying a Zune. People's aversion to rented music is so great that they would rather buy CDs than risk the same money on a scheme that may or may not work. Shame on M$ for promoting behavior they claim to abhor.
if they don't fix it, it is still me that suffers. This is a case where I can't choose to just "use another vendor", unfortunately.
I'm sorry to hear that. You might try IE under Crossover Office or XP under Parallels. If that does not work, you need to have an XP box in the corner.
An AC imagines Bad Things:
That bar is getting lower by the minute. Just wait until Google starts throwing its IP weight around.
OK, I'll put that right under a few other things I'm supposed to be waiting for:
All of the above is usually said in hushed tones by people deep into M$ stuff. It's often accompanied by statements like, "Microsoft is really taking their gloves off now," as if M$ might secretly aid such efforts. Bad Things, but all FUD from a company that good for little else.
Who would want to use a machine without a PIII or higher chip in the first place.
I think you mean "lower".
There are lots of nice laptops with PII and PIII class chips in them and they really are all you need if you are using GNU/Linux. My best laptops are 1 GHz PIIIs and Etch works great on them. My favorite laptop is still a Thinkpad 600. It has a 233 MHz PII and 300MB of RAM. Etch works great on it. Sound works, and I can watch movies with it. It's a little old for number crunching and it's a lot heavier than an X30, but it's low power enough for me to use in my lap without getting burnt.
You're telling me I want to go back to IE 4 all of the sudden?
Dillo would be easier. As a bonus it has tabs and better rendering. Both, however, have fewer digital restrictions and would be preferable to the terms of use of IE7.
Firefox, of course, offers better rendering, more user customization, ease of use, security and hardware choice than IE7. Combined with GNU/Linux, you can install Firefox on just about any computer without loss of modern web standards, flash and all that. IE7 is PIII and above because it only works with XP and Vista. With IE7 you are stuck with the choice of seven year old software that has to be patched and still sucks or software that barely runs on the latest and greatest multicored watt burner.
What's its problem? I'm not sure, let's see!
Does it not browse the web? Yes, but so does Dillo.
Is it insecure? Yes. With special mechanisms like BHO and sabotaged java engine it's unsafe at any site.
Is it unstable? Yes, using it means you get to wipe and reload your computer once a month.
Is it unpleasant to use? Oh God, yes. Even when you don't consider the obtrusive OS it requires, the lack of features is glaring.
Does it lack features? Try Firefox or Konqueror for a while.
Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? No, only M$ has the source.
Is it poorly programmed? I think the above answers this question.
Why are you so f*****g picky?
I'm not. Why are you so fucking stupid?
The most annoying thing about IE is that it's tied to a DRM'd asspain. It will auto install all sorts of malware along with "security" applications from Sony and others. The impossible and stupid goal of these programs is to keep you from making copies. IE is the browser of slaves.
My rate of failure these days is less than one percent. It's very rare to find a site that I NEED that is IE only.
I do wish there was a version of Firefox/Mozilla that had an IE-compatibility mode... "FireIE Fox" or something, for use in such cases. Fortunately, another few broken sites finally "saw the light", probably due to complaints from people like us, and fixed things.
It's better to complain and get the issue fixed than it is to waste time on the endless task of chasing M$'s tail. The great thing about Firefox use is that it punishes people who blindly set up M$ servers or carelessly cater to IE. It's foolish for a company to turn away 1/10 of their customers but suicidal to turn away 1/4 or 1/2.
M$ can't win this one. Their browser is harder to use and less secure. The only thing it has going is the few sites you have noticed but those are bad for the business that runs them.
How are new formats designed to make sure people buy a new word processor when Microsoft release compatibility packs for older versions so they can open the new formats?
Because the "compatibility packs" are never perfect and usually work best as translators into the new format. The ultimate cost of their making money is you doing more work. This is why their supposedly "open" xml format specification has goofey things like, "do this exactly like Word 5 for Mac" without further advice. Their formats never were portable because they never have cared about your effort.
So you can choose if you want the backward compatible version or the new version, and it is easy to know what you chose. Currently we have a some Office 2007 at work but mostly Office 2003. No problems thus far, as the 2007 people know to keep using the old formats and everyone is happy.
The menu for types is confusing and makes interchange a PITA. There are three options, "default", "Office97-2003" and "other". If this version is like all of the rest, conversion is one way - in but not out - and 97-2003 will be a mess. The other formats are way too confusing for the average user with multiple types defined for the same version of word processor name. Once you get past all of that, you have Vista's default behavior of hiding file extensions to keep you from knowing which file is what.
All of this confusion and complexity has one aim: to make sure people buy a new M$ word processor every few years. The file formats change around to keep other programs from being able to use them. The new formats themselves are used to force others to buy Word. This routine has worked several times.
The only real question is how many times can M$ pull the old switcheroo before people revolt. It's such a transparent rip off.
They were only "protecting consumers" so they could have them for themselves. Their goal has always been to be the man in the middle who collects all the fees. The Digital Restrictions in Vista are the end game, their open declaration of anti-competition on "their" platform.
Of course Linux is a target and they have been attacking other operating systems forever. DRDOS, OS/2 and Netscape are prime examples. Free Software has also been a target and the same tactics are used. Their attacks on free software do not end with their loud "get the facts" and othe smear campaigns and SCO attacks. There's also technical sabotage and everything they have a hand in is evil. They set up BIOS non standards like ACPI, to not run with free software. Winmodems are still a significant impediment as a large percentage of the frugal market for GNU/Linux users are also dail up users. M$ has even attacked the ogg vorbis music format by forbidding it's use in the majority of music players. Their interference with email standards should be seen in the same vein. Everything they do is designed to perpetuate their early 90s market position.
He has the music there, if we have similar playing devices, when not let me cherry pick a few songs off his immediately, then 3 days later when I'm syncing ask if I want to buy them? I get the music legally, after a few days free use, the IP holder gets their due ...
Once you pay the Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane. M$'s rent a music schemes are not a one time payment, and they will try to push everyone into it. Do you think they will pay the RIAA or artists what's fair? Yeah, right.
An alternative you left out is that artists adopt other methods of promoting themselves that don't involve suing people. That way, you get to trade as much of your friend's collection as you want. The artist gets promoted and everyone wins, except the mafiaa.
Seriously, in the grand scheme of things, with people downloading tracks from p2p networks and ripping their own CDs, is this going to make an impact whatsoever?
The impact of this scheme is limited by poor sales of the Zune. While Apple was able to sell half a million iPhones on it's first weekend, Zune missed it's million player target last month. People don't want a music player that "squirts" expiring music. Part of the reason is because they don't really care to share their music like the MAFIAA thinks they do. The other part of poor Zune sales is that people want to own, not rent, the music they have. They continue to purchase and rip CDs and that is still the major source of people's music collections despite abundant, legal and free music on line. Because of this, they can put up with iPod's lame sharing capability but think very dimly of Zune's ability to disappear music.
M$ can keep their crappy patent - no one is going to buy a device that implements it.