Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > OOXML "Technically Inferior"

Reply
Thread Tools

OOXML "Technically Inferior"

 
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2008
See:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-inferior.html

'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '

Especially:

"We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
behavior."

So, there you have it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2008
On 2008-02-06, peterwn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> See:
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-inferior.html
>
> 'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '
>
> Especially:
>
> "We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
> for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
> involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
> revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
> the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
> collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
> Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
> technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
> the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
> thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
> behavior."
>
> So, there you have it.


So, there we have it from Bob Sutor. But is he correct? Time will tell
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Squiggle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2008
Gordon wrote:
> On 2008-02-06, peterwn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> See:
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-inferior.html
>>
>> 'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '
>>
>> Especially:
>>
>> "We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
>> for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
>> involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
>> revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
>> the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
>> collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
>> Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
>> technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
>> the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
>> thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
>> behavior."
>>
>> So, there you have it.

>
> So, there we have it from Bob Sutor. But is he correct? Time will tell


Whether he is correct or not is pretty irrelevant in the long run, its
whether he is on the winning side.

Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
leader.

Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
VHS, BETA.
NTSC, PAL, SECAM
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ross
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2008
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:12:15 +1300, Squiggle <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
>leader.
>
>Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
>VHS, BETA.
>NTSC, PAL, SECAM


Windows 3.1 vs Geoworks
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2008
On Feb 6, 9:12 pm, Squiggle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
> leader.
>
> Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
> VHS, BETA.
> NTSC, PAL, SECAM


These 'inferior' standards (except Windows) are still around.

Windows has been through various incarnations, so it is not a
'standard' eg an application / driver written to work under Windows
3.1 is may not work under Vista.

It looks like that OOXML even if adopted as a standard will be an
'oprhan' from the word go. As far as I can see, while Office 2007
uses some format like OOXML, it seems tht it would not use the *real*
(ie standard) OOXML (assuming it even meets the usual criteria of a
standard).

It is worth noting that compilers, interpreters, etc often come with a
'strict' or similar switch to lock out any languge extensions so that
a user can be assured that the sorce code complies strictly with
standards - this is so that the software is assured to compile on
'production' or client machines. I do not really see Microsoft having
such a feature in Office, why is may looen Microsoft's 'lockin' of
customers.

In any event MS Office will drift away from OOXML and in due course
will adopt some new format completely, leaving OOXML as a complete
orphan.

ISO in the meantime will tighten up rules and procedures governing
standards to avoid this sort of nonsense in the future.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2008
In article <47a96be0$(E-Mail Removed)>, Squiggle did write:

> NTSC, PAL, SECAM


I think there is probably a greater proportion of the world's population
watching PAL broadcasts than either of the other analog formats. It also
happens to be the best of the bunch.
 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2008
Squiggle wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
>> On 2008-02-06, peterwn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> See:
>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-inferior.html
>>>
>>>
>>> 'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '
>>>
>>> Especially:
>>>
>>> "We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
>>> for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
>>> involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
>>> revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
>>> the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
>>> collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
>>> Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
>>> technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
>>> the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
>>> thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
>>> behavior."
>>>
>>> So, there you have it.

>>
>> So, there we have it from Bob Sutor. But is he correct? Time will tell

>
> Whether he is correct or not is pretty irrelevant in the long run, its
> whether he is on the winning side.
>
> Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
> leader.
>
> Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
> VHS, BETA.
> NTSC, PAL, SECAM


History is interesting and it is even more interesting when you look at
the costs.

Good enough and cheap seems to win over superior but expensive...

ie BETAMAX v VHS, betamax was better but much more expensive, VHS won....

OS/2 v Windows, OS/2 was obviously superior and yet a crappy
non-networked OS won....it was way cheaper....

I dont like the Unix v windows comparison directly because they have not
really competed...it is more a hardware fight than a OS fight.

Very Expensive RISC v Cisc....intel (sort of) won...but the markets
differ....certainly moving forward the x86 architecture is going to
dominate the next 10~20 years IHMO.

A better one is Unix v Linux and we can see who is winning that one, x86
machines are dirt cheap and Linux is all but free...

Or SCO Unix v Linux as it is the same x86 based hardware....

Add another,

USB v Firewire...

and the present OS fight is Linux v Windows...if history follows form,
MS is stuffed. However installed base might carry the day or make the
battle a long one...(see the Unix v Windows skirmish)

In the case of XML though MS's version is both more expensive and
inferior and since they are on pretty even footing MS should not stand a
chance...

regards

Thing





 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, thingy did write:

> and the present OS fight is Linux v Windows...if history follows form,
> MS is stuffed. However installed base might carry the day or make the
> battle a long one...


Installed base can only delay the transition, it cannot prevail.

I see parallels in Linux vs Windows in the earlier Windows vs Mac situation
around 1990 or so, back when Apple was still dominant in GUI systems.
Windows 3.x was the version that really started to get popular, even as Mac
users (of which I was one) looked down on it as a pile of steaming
excrement. It didn't have anywhere near the ease of use, the built-in
functionality, or the seamless hardware-software integration. Or the looks,
for that matter. But what it did offer its users was a greater freedom of
choice: you weren't constrained within Apple's higher-priced, less-flexible
walled garden, and that was important to a lot of people.

Similarly, to those who keep insisting that Linux doesn't quite offer full
equivalents to every single application that they're used to, that's not
essential to its success. It is now Microsoft that is constraining users'
choices, both deliberately in terms of its licensing, and not so
deliberately in terms of Windows' high, inflexible resource requirements.
It is now Linux that is offering the freedom of choice, to run your systems
the way you want to, with your choice of expensive, up-to-date hardware or
cheaper, more modest hardware--the decision is yours.
 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2008
"thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Squiggle wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-06, peterwn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> See:
>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-inferior.html
>>>>
>>>> 'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '
>>>>
>>>> Especially:
>>>>
>>>> "We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
>>>> for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
>>>> involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
>>>> revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
>>>> the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
>>>> collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
>>>> Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
>>>> technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
>>>> the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
>>>> thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
>>>> behavior."
>>>>
>>>> So, there you have it.
>>>
>>> So, there we have it from Bob Sutor. But is he correct? Time will tell

>>
>> Whether he is correct or not is pretty irrelevant in the long run, its
>> whether he is on the winning side.
>>
>> Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
>> leader.
>>
>> Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
>> VHS, BETA.
>> NTSC, PAL, SECAM

>
> History is interesting and it is even more interesting when you look at
> the costs.
>
> Good enough and cheap seems to win over superior but expensive...
>
> > ie BETAMAX v VHS, betamax was better but much more expensive, VHS
> > won....

>


No, the differences in perceptible quality between VHS and Betamax
recordings were minute. The issue that settled the competition in the reral
world was recording time. When 4-hour VHS tapes hit the market, you couldn't
sell a Betamax machine at any price, because Betamax tapes were limited to 1
hour.

> OS/2 v Windows, OS/2 was obviously superior and yet a crappy non-networked
> OS won....it was way cheaper....


Cheaper? Nah. It was the lack of native OS2 applications that killed OS2.
People were willing to pay a premium for **any** os that would run quality
desktop applications, and it turned out that only Windows developers were
able to deliver.

>
> I dont like the Unix v windows comparison directly because they have not
> really competed...it is more a hardware fight than a OS fight.
>
> Very Expensive RISC v Cisc....intel (sort of) won...but the markets
> differ....certainly moving forward the x86 architecture is going to
> dominate the next 10~20 years IHMO.
>
> A better one is Unix v Linux and we can see who is winning that one, x86
> machines are dirt cheap and Linux is all but free...
>
> Or SCO Unix v Linux as it is the same x86 based hardware....
>
> Add another,
>
> USB v Firewire...


This is a poor example, because the versaltility of low-cost USB technology
is so much greater than that of Firewire. Yes, Firewire still (for now at
least) beats USB in terms of data transfer speeds. But when it comes to
driving keyboards, mice, printers, scanners, wireless network gear,
headsets, etc -- the technical edge that USB enjoys over Firewire, thanks to
its low-cost design, is undisputed.

>
> and the present OS fight is Linux v Windows...if history follows form, MS
> is stuffed. However installed base might carry the day or make the battle
> a long one...(see the Unix v Windows skirmish)
>


If history follows form, Microsoft will dominate the desktop software market
for the **next** 15 years. Why? Because development of software for the nix
desktop remains in a stunningly uncreative and technically unsophisticated
rut. Not a single application has been generated that isn't either (a) a
shameless clone of some old Window app or (b) a bright idea in perpetual
beta. The only challenge to Microsoft I see right now is from Google, which
has the brains and capital to possibly transform "desktop software" into an
anachronism.

> In the case of XML though MS's version is both more expensive and inferior
> and since they are on pretty even footing MS should not stand a chance...
>


Applications matter to end users -- not formats. People predicting the
demise of Microsoft have never seemed to understand that.


 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2008
On Feb 8, 10:55 pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> Applications matter to end users -- not formats. People predicting the
> demise of Microsoft have never seemed to understand that.


Until people receiving OOXML documents attached to their E-mails start
telling the sender which orifice they can stick OOXML up.

As it is, Victoria University has told people not to use the .docx etc
formats (ie Microsoft's variant of OOXML) as no one can read them.
Moreover both OOXML and Office 2007 are 'off limits' when prepring
articles for peer reviewed learned scientific journals as it botches
up mathematical formulae (even if you save in traditional .doc with
Office 2007).

So people can read my attachments I prepare the document on Open
Office (run it under Windows if ou like!) then 'export' it in .pdf
format. I recommend everyone does this rather than muck around with
that OOXML crap.

It is bad enough being bossed around by Helen Clark than to to be
bossed around by Bill Gates too.

 
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
Petition against Office OpenXML (OOXML) joe_90 NZ Computing 0 10-27-2007 06:52 AM
OOXML fails Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 48 09-11-2007 07:02 AM
Microsoft employee offered incentives for OOXML support Jonathan Walker NZ Computing 6 09-09-2007 09:03 AM
Microsoft Office and ooxml (.docx) peterwn NZ Computing 169 06-01-2007 01:35 PM
interesting post from Miguel de Icaza on OOXML Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ NZ Computing 35 02-07-2007 10:12 PM



Advertisments