• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 10

My comments

• "The most serious issue I ran into was incompatibility with Windows Live Hotmail (seen above), which is a showstopper"
  
  erm... I use Chrome at work I found by clicking the "Continue to Windows Live Hotmail" shown in the screen grab above everything worked fine. Are you saying it didn't for you? All the page is saying is it doesn't know if your browser supports all the necessary JavaScript. Hardly a showstopper. In reply to: "7 days with Google Chrome"

  September 11, 2008

  4 replies

• True, true.
  I see where you're coming from, but in my view a standard is only a standard if it's attainable by everyone without prior consent, licensing etc.
  
  For instance if only one company sold screws and said "hey everyone these screws are 10mm long" so everyone builds everything to work with them, over a period of years then suddenly the company says, "sorry, we decided 10mm just wasn't enough their now 10cm long with diamond tips". Everyone is.. well screwed and 'has' to change (I apologise in full for that pun, I'm debating hari-kari).
  
  If those pesky bits in OOXML which default to a proprietary standard of Microsoft's weren't there I'd most likely embrace it with open arms.Until anyone can create one of their documents without anything other than their specification, it's just a common monopoly not a standard.
  
  "Firefox does not check subject line boxes" which is really bloody annoying isn't it! Drives me up the wall. I'm not in the grammar police but anyone called 'Troll Hard' should except at least a few controversial or contrary messages to his posts (did you not notice the typos in my reply to you? It was only a joke).
  
  I think you're right about MS-Office holding a massive monopoly for years to come, but I'd like to see 'some' competition there. Would at least push the market forward (look at FF and IE7).

  September 6, 2007

  0 replies

• Quite right... and so, so wrong.
  Well "Troll Hard" first off, just to be clear, I'm not a zealot of any kind, I just want what's easier for me and OOXML just looks like a train wreck in waiting, second of all what's a "stanard"? Maybe you should check spelling standards like a dictionary it's fine don't panic you don't need to pay to use that data.
  
  You are partly right of course, it's very likely that OOXML will indeed be used a lot, however as far as large companies institutions and governments are concerned they will hardly all buy new MS office, install conversion plugins or change all their prior documents overnight so we can expect all those binary doc, xls and ppt will be around awhile.
  
  I'd also imagine a trade over far slower than say IE7 which only takes about 20.1% of the internet market despite being out for over a year and a half and being forced out in updates.
  
  Also with this implementation of OOXML it makes it easier for alternatives of office to flourish by giving them much better (although not complete) conversion information. All in all it's a win, win situation for the anti-microsoft crowd. Lets be fair Microsoft wouldn't have lobbied so hard if it hadn't have been worried about the odf alternative.
  
  It should be intriguing to see what happens to the market in the coming years don't you agree?

  September 4, 2007

  1 reply

• I wish people could be rational for a moment
  Lobbying (bribing) and market share aside the OOXML shouldn't be a standard.
  
  "Others say a standards designation would reflect reality, because more than 90 percent of electronic documents are in Microsoft format"
  
  Well yes that's certainly true, in fact probably more than 90% of worldwide users use Microsoft formats to store information, however, without obtaining licences no-one else could actually implement parts of the documents or generate them, that's the difference between a standard and a proprietary monopoly.
  
  Now OOXML was in essence meant to solve that issue, an ISO standard is one you can implement without having or requiring anything other than the ISO standard (maybe allowing accompanying or referenced material which is also freely available).
  
  The real problem is that OOXML doesn't fulfil this criteria all the defaults of much of the OOXML appear to be patented, it references books without volume numbers or specifics. It is incomplete, I don't really care about Microsoft bending the system to win, that's what businesses do, I'm more concerned that the ISO standards body is (apparently) letting them force through a obviously flawed standard.
  
  When something is so blatantly broken it shouldn't be voted on, it should be fixed.

  September 4, 2007

  2 replies

• Yawn.
  I understand the need for everyone to be agitated about this. I also understand why people are venting at each other. I think some people here fail to realise why OOXML shouldn't be an ISO and it's not a company, ideology or even a market share issue.
  
  The whole point of the ISO stamp is that anyone can implement the whole OOXML format (even the defaults) without requiring anything other than the specification. OOXML just doesn't fulfil that requirement, if it did there wouldn't be such a fuss.
  
  I don't care if Microsoft do introduce a standard alongside ODF, I do care if they force it out when companies cannot actually implement parts of it. Either way, in the long run the better format will win out due to the fact that it "is" better so I'm content to wait on this.
  
  Until then let's try and play nice and not feed trolls eh :). In reply to: "Microsoft Open XML standards vote foments politics, dismay"

  September 3, 2007

  0 replies

• Further competition to Microsoft Office and iWork looms..
  Just for completion there is of course OpenOffice/Star office suites, Scribus and many more options out there. Personally, at my level, they're all pretty much the same so I use the free ones. In reply to: "Microsoft delays release of Office for Mac 2008"

  August 2, 2007

  1 reply

• Speechless
  While I agree that patents, in many cases, can have a positive effect in protecting the new and innovative designs of developers. However it can also be used to stranglehold an industry, like say when Microsoft patents verb conjugation, creating multiple files from one (winzip), installing software on a computer and my personal favourite the patent for the 'double-click'.
  
  For more please visit "http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/p.spronck/
  RidiculousPatents.htm" and for the entire list go to "http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
  Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2F
  search-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Microsoft&
  FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=ptxt"
  
  Patents are a broken system, and while required, need to evolve with the times.

  March 8, 2007

  0 replies

• You have a point
  I accept that those people from Grok cannot be considered unbiased, in fact it's likely they are, and it's also true that it doesn't preclude the fact that they may well be affiliated with IBM. Also I can't refute that IBM were the only people on the ECMA board to vote against (20-1 against in Dec 2006). I actually said that IBM had an agenda no question at all, however, due to all the faults, issues and problems raised about OOXML I think it shouldn't be made an open ISO standard irrelevant of IBM, which was the point I was aiming for.

  February 15, 2007

  0 replies

• Oops my bad.
  Sorry that was misleading, what I was talking about was inner integrity like being whole or undivided; completeness. To clarify, I meant the entire ODF explains itself ie. Inner integrity, while if you read the link I gave you in my last comment, the OOXML occasionally refers to proprietary systems as a part of it's open standard. That's what I was referring too (badly I admit) sorry if it seemed like FUD.

  February 14, 2007

  0 replies

• IBM will have an agenda... But
  It's obvious that many people are unhappy with the idea of what is called an "Office Open XML" format rather than repeat the vast numbers of issues found visit: "http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections" for a list compiled by a variety people on numerous issues they've discovered with the new format, it gives compelling reasons not to consider giving the OOXML an ISO standard. More importantly, it's not affiliated to IBM so it shows there's motivations here outside business, like integrity and clarity.

  February 14, 2007

  2 replies