Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Windows 98 Support Ends

Reply
Thread Tools

Windows 98 Support Ends

 
 
madknoxie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
In article <pan.2004.01.11.04.18.15.121918@TRACKER>,
Lennier <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The really stupid thing is WHY do people save stuff in the latest version
> of .DOC when they don't need the few extra additional functions supported
> by that format? Why don't they by default save their document in the
> oldest format that still provides the features that they're wanting out of
> their version of M$ Word?
>
> I think all businesses should be doing that as a matter of course - in
> order to have their documents readable by as many persons as possible.
>
> PDF of course is best, but an old but readable .DOC is better than a
> bleeding-edge .DOC that is unreadable/unusable without spending pots of
> dosh.


Thats something that really ****es me off, that Govt departments and
institutions would only make information available in a proprietary and
closed format such as .doc.

Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any different
to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed? I know it works far better
for displaying documents how you want them to be displayed on most OSes,
but is it just as bad in the free sense?

--
madknoxie
Permanent Members, UN Security Council: USA, UK, France, China, Russia
The world's biggest arms traders: USA, UK, France, China, Russia
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lennier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:04:26 +1300, madknoxie wrote:

> Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any different
> to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed? I know it works far better
> for displaying documents how you want them to be displayed on most OSes,
> but is it just as bad in the free sense?


Portable Document Files contain Postscript - a language designed for use
with printers.

While Postscript is (or at least was) a proprietary language, it is,
however, well documented and there are many Open Source programmes
designed to produce and to read Postscript documents such as Adobe PDFs.

PDF is indeed the file format which is universally transportable across
all platforms.

Many government departments use PDFs for documents on their websites - but
obviously not all.

Micro$oft .DOC files are indeed a closed format for which there is no
published specification describing what is what and where is where
within a .DOC file.

Non-Micro$oft programmes are only able to read .DOC files as a result of
much careful reverse engineering of the .DOC files.


Lennier

--
Delenn: "Do not look any further. All life is transitory - a dream.
We all come together in cyber space, in the end of time. If I do not
see you, I'll see you again soon - at the place where no Shadows fall."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
harry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
madknoxie wrote:
..
>
> Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any
> different to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed?


No
Apple used the pdf specification to develop the gui for OSX, yet it contains
no Adobe code

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/adobepdf.html
Governments and enterprises around the world have adopted PDF to streamline
document management, increase productivity, and reduce reliance on paper.
For example, PDF is the standard format for the electronic submission of
drug approvals to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and for
electronic case filing in U.S. federal courts. It is also used by the
governments of the United Kingdom and Germany for electronic document
exchange. Finally, the ISO's PDF/X specification is the standard file format
used for the digital distribution of advertisements for publication.

An open file format specification, PDF is available to anyone who wants to
develop tools to create, view, or manipulate PDF documents. Indeed, more
than 1,800 vendors offer PDF-based solutions, ensuring that organizations
that adopt the PDF standard have a variety of tools to leverage the Portable
Document Format and to customize document processes.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Barg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
madknoxie wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.01.11.04.18.15.121918@TRACKER>,
> Lennier <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>

....
> Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any different
> to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed? I know it works far better
> for displaying documents how you want them to be displayed on most OSes,
> but is it just as bad in the free sense?
>


The latest version of OpenOffice allows you to export in PDF format, so I
guess it's open!

 
Reply With Quote
 
T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
Barg wrote:
>>Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any different
>>to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed? I know it works far better
>>for displaying documents how you want them to be displayed on most OSes,
>>but is it just as bad in the free sense?


> The latest version of OpenOffice allows you to export in PDF format, so I
> guess it's open!


Using that theory, they also allow you to export as word docs... so they
must be open

--
Http://www.Dave.net.nz
Play Hangman
Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger Johnstone
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
In <(E-Mail Removed)> madknoxie wrote:
>
> Thats something that really ****es me off, that Govt departments and
> institutions would only make information available in a proprietary
> and closed format such as .doc.
>
> Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any
> different to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed? I know it
> works far better for displaying documents how you want them to be
> displayed on most OSes, but is it just as bad in the free sense?


While the Portable Document Format was created by Adobe, they have
published it as an open standard. That means that anyone can write
software for creating or displaying PDFs without paying anything to
Adobe.

For instance, Nextstep/Openstep used Display Postscript for its screen
rendering, but that meant Next had to license Postscript from Adobe.
Openstep's descendent, Mac OS X, has a display rendering engine called
Quartz, which is basically "Display PDF". Because it's based on PDF
Apple doesn't need to license it.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand

Apple II - FutureCop:LAPD - iMac Game Wizard
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws/
__________________________________________________ ______________________

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with
the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that
won't last out the year."

The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
 
Reply With Quote
 
harry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
Roger Johnstone wrote:
> In <(E-Mail Removed)> madknoxie
> wrote:
>>
>> Thats something that really ****es me off, that Govt departments and
>> institutions would only make information available in a proprietary
>> and closed format such as .doc.
>>
>> Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any
>> different to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed? I know it
>> works far better for displaying documents how you want them to be
>> displayed on most OSes, but is it just as bad in the free sense?

>
> While the Portable Document Format was created by Adobe, they have
> published it as an open standard. That means that anyone can write
> software for creating or displaying PDFs without paying anything to
> Adobe.
>
> For instance, Nextstep/Openstep used Display Postscript for its screen
> rendering, but that meant Next had to license Postscript from Adobe.
> Openstep's descendent, Mac OS X, has a display rendering engine called
> Quartz, which is basically "Display PDF". Because it's based on PDF
> Apple doesn't need to license it.


Didn't Microsoft created Truetype, wayback then for the same reason ?
Ironic


 
Reply With Quote
 
madknoxie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
In article <TxdMb.16770$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Barg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> madknoxie wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2004.01.11.04.18.15.121918@TRACKER>,
> > Lennier <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >

> ...
> > Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any different
> > to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed? I know it works far better
> > for displaying documents how you want them to be displayed on most OSes,
> > but is it just as bad in the free sense?
> >

>
> The latest version of OpenOffice allows you to export in PDF format, so I
> guess it's open!


So does any program that prints in Mac OS X

--
madknoxie
Permanent Members, UN Security Council: USA, UK, France, China, Russia
The world's biggest arms traders: USA, UK, France, China, Russia
 
Reply With Quote
 
harry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
madknoxie wrote:
> In article <TxdMb.16770$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Barg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> madknoxie wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2004.01.11.04.18.15.121918@TRACKER>,
>>> Lennier <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>

>> ...
>>> Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any
>>> different to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed? I know it
>>> works far better for displaying documents how you want them to be
>>> displayed on most OSes, but is it just as bad in the free sense?
>>>

>>
>> The latest version of OpenOffice allows you to export in PDF format,
>> so I guess it's open!

>
> So does any program that prints in Mac OS X


KDE does that too.
Surely there must be print to file drivers for Windows other than Adobe
Acrobat Distiller
Heres one http://pdfmachine.com/pdfmachine/overview.shtml
It should be possible for Microsoft to offer pdf print to file as part of a
standard install.
Its not really any different to print to fax.
Its just policy.


 
Reply With Quote
 
madknoxie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2004
In article <p8lMb.16815$(E-Mail Removed)>, "harry" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> madknoxie wrote:
> > In article <TxdMb.16770$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Barg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> madknoxie wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <pan.2004.01.11.04.18.15.121918@TRACKER>,
> >>> Lennier <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>
> >> ...
> >>> Although I would much rather they use PDFs, is this format any
> >>> different to .doc? Is it still proprietary and closed? I know it
> >>> works far better for displaying documents how you want them to be
> >>> displayed on most OSes, but is it just as bad in the free sense?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The latest version of OpenOffice allows you to export in PDF format,
> >> so I guess it's open!

> >
> > So does any program that prints in Mac OS X

>
> KDE does that too.
> Surely there must be print to file drivers for Windows other than Adobe
> Acrobat Distiller
> Heres one http://pdfmachine.com/pdfmachine/overview.shtml
> It should be possible for Microsoft to offer pdf print to file as part of a
> standard install.


It's probably in Longhorn, with little stuff like that they tend to be
followers rather than innovators.

--
madknoxie
Permanent Members, UN Security Council: USA, UK, France, China, Russia
The world's biggest arms traders: USA, UK, France, China, Russia
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Support for both Web and Desktop front-ends [Architecture] Warren Tang Java 12 07-24-2011 01:37 AM
Re: Support for both Web and Desktop front-ends [Architecture] Warren Tang Java 2 07-21-2011 10:43 PM
AOL ends support for Netscape Navigator VK Javascript 1 12-31-2007 11:56 AM
Help ends for older Windows systems Au79 Computer Support 13 07-25-2006 08:26 PM
Re: MS Ends Support for CP/M80 Roger Johnstone NZ Computing 2 04-25-2004 12:18 AM



Advertisments