Microsoft Expands Document Interoperability

I’m happy to be wrong. (And used to it.)

While I’d love to see them embrace open standards like ODF (and CSS and XHTML would be great too) doesn’t it make sense for Microsoft to resist them? Supposed lack of interoperability between MS Office formats and its would-be competitors is the biggest thing keeping WIU from switching to OpenOffice. If Microsoft adopted the OASIS formats (and actually followed them) we’d seriously consider switching. We could do quite a bit of cool stuff with all the dough we send to Redmond for Office every year….

Alan, back when there were other competing office products (OpenOffice and AbiWord would like to think they are competitors to Microsoft Office, but they really aren’t), file format was a factor in considering what product to purchase. But now that there are no competing office suites, it really doesn’t matter what file format Microsoft chooses as long as everyone else using Office can read that format.

Part of the beauty of having built XML formats into Office 2003 is that by the time Office 2007 ships in March, anyone who doesn’t have a copy of Office that supports XML file formats will be running 6 year-old software. I have little or no sympathy if ancient software can’t read modern formats.

While I wouldn’t be surprised if there are organisations running Office XP and older, it also doesn’t seem an unreasonable burden imposed by Microsoft.

As far as Ubuntu goes, I have no doubt it’s a quality product. That’s what all the reports say. The problem really isn’t the Ubuntu parts as much as it is the non-Ubuntu parts. There’s only so much you can do to fix the visual consistency problems that make even the best Linux distribution feel clunky.

On the other hand, I don’t have a machine to run Ubuntu on. Nor do I really have the need. My PowerBook meets my needs for a Unix environment with the advantage that it has the sort of fit and finish I’ve come to expect from Apple.

Look, fellow nerds, we managed to make the hard transition from being obsessed with system software and caring more about applications, and that’s great; now, why don’t we take the extra step of acknowledging the importance of file formats? It’s open file formats make it possible to jump ship from one app to another in case you aren’t pleased. For instance, you don’t have to worry about losing your painstakingly crafted, variably transparent PNG images when dropping off Photoshop for GIMP. You realize word processors, like paint programs, are just tools, and what you really make a profit from is the finished product, which in the digital world means the output file? If people buy an ODF-supporting MS Office rather than an ODF-supporting OO.o or KWord because it’s feature set is more to their needs, so much the better. The trouble is now, with the MS proprietary formats (whether binary or XML based), you don’t have a choice.

Also, if you haven’t tried the latest release of Ubuntu, give it a whirl. It’s a quality product.

I think open formats are incredibly important, but that’s not the death knell for Microsoft that some seem to think it is.

“But visual consistency isn’t the big problem facing Linux. The real problem is that it doesn’t run Microsoft Office. There’s Open Office, AbiWord and several others, but none of them is Office.”

Microsoft Office is becoming less and less important every day. Three words: Oh Dee Eff.