The cost of ODF and OOXML or why MS is lying

[Hungry Man]

http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/bl...and_OOXML.html

I just come across a blog post from Glyn Moody reporting the claimed cost from Microsoft on requiring ODF to be used by the UK government. I just sent him an email to let him know that his assumption are most likely wrong. Sharing it here in case some of my blog readers have seem the same numbers float around in the UK.

Hi. I just noted your http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/ope...lion/index.htm comment:

"They're all in Danish, not unreasonably, but even with the help of Google Translate I can't find any figures about the savings of "moving to a flexible two standard" as claimed by the Microsoft email. But I assume it is backed up somewhere, so let's take it, and the £500 million figure for the UK, on trust."
I can tell you that the Danish reports are inflated. I believe it is the same reports that were used in the Norwegian debate around 2007, and Gisle Hannemyr (a well known IT commentator in Norway) had a look at the content. In short, the reason it is claimed that using ODF will be so costly, is based on the assumption that this mean every existing document need to be converted from one of the MS Office formats to ODF, transferred to the receiver, and converted back from ODF to one of the MS Office formats, and that the conversion will cost 10 minutes of work time for both the sender and the receiver. In reality the sender would have a tool capable of saving to ODF, and the receiver would have a tool capable of reading it, and the time spent would at most be a few seconds for saving and loading, not 20 minutes of wasted effort.

Microsoft claimed all these costs were saved by allowing people to transfer the original files from MS Office instead of spending 10 minutes converting to ODF.

[vasa1]

I know that large purchasing decisions are easily be influenced in "banana republic" nations but when even more advanced countries succumb, what is to be said?

Originally Posted by vasa1

I know that large purchasing decisions are easily be influenced in "banana republic" nations but when even more advanced countries succumb, what is to be said?

That Microsoft is not lying. Easy one, next please.

[Robin A.]

"In reality the sender would have a tool capable of saving to ODF, and the receiver would have a tool capable of reading it, and the time spent would at most be a few seconds for saving and loading, not 20 minutes of wasted effort.

Microsoft claimed all these costs were saved by allowing people to transfer the original files from MS Office instead of spending 10 minutes converting to ODF."

I recall from my past use of OpenOffice that converting from/to ODF is fast. Another thing is to read the "converted" document, or, worse, to try to edit it. A lot of work and time may be involved.

[Cudni]

ot posts removed

[Hungry Man]

Originally Posted by guest

That Microsoft is not lying. Easy one, next please.

They're "not lying" just like I'm "not lying" when I say that Chrome is the most widely used browser. I mean, I've got the numbers to back it up. You can dispute them all you like but unless you go out there and survey everyone yourself you can't prove me wrong.

That's all this is.

Originally Posted by Robin A.

I recall from my past use of OpenOffice that converting from/to ODF is fast. Another thing is to read the "converted" document, or, worse, to try to edit it. A lot of work and time may be involved.

Exactly. The guy is simply oversimplifying the time a true conversion process takes. He is cutting steps and ignoring aims in this pathetic attempt to "prove" that Microsoft is "lying". Very funny.

Cost?

The real cost is down the road. OOXML is this year's format. Sooner or later it will be obsoleted, and useful data will be lost in the process of converting everything to the new format. Welcome to the dark age of data loss!

Really, this is like desktop security: it's better to spend X on a decent security setup now, than to spend 5X cleaning up after a malware infection some time later. Unfortunately, the idea of planning ahead is one that most governments (and other large organizations) don't appear to understand very well.

So yeah. Using an open format now may very well cost more up front, but IMO it could save huge amounts of trouble later on.

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

They're "not lying" just like I'm "not lying" when I say that Chrome is the most widely used browser.

Unless Chrome is now being bundled with Windows this has to be the silliest analogy that I've read since this morning.

" ... so let's take it, and the £500 million figure for the UK, on trust."

And if we don't take this (& the figures) on trust, does this mean it all boils down to rumour & disinformation?

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

I mean, I've got the numbers to back it up.

I'm sorry, but no, you haven't. Honestly.

[Hungry Man]

Yes, I do.

http://swiki.net/statcounter-chrome-...d-browser.html

Even if the numbers are absolute bias crap, they're there and there was some at least somewhat legitimate study saying "Chrome is the most widely used browser."

It's not lying, just disingenuous.

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by Gullible Jones

Unfortunately, the idea of planning ahead is one that most governments ... don't appear to understand very well.

Too right mate!

Originally Posted by Gullible Jones

Cost?
The real cost is down the road. OOXML is this year's format. Sooner or later it will be obsoleted, and useful data will be lost in the process of converting everything to the new format. Welcome to the dark age of data loss!

IMO, your argument is FUD.

Even old Microsoft Office XML documents can be converted with perfection to the OOXML. And, why are you assuming that OOXML will be "obsoleted"?

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microso...cation_Promise

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

... there was some at least somewhat legitimate study saying "Chrome is the most widely used browser."

Honestly mate, I'm surprised that you could even entertain this notion. Most of my work colleagues, who are quite familiar with IT, probably wouldn't know how to download Chrome or that there are real alternatives to IE. I'll bet 7 out of 10 people in the world using Windows just use IE. Trust me on this. The only reason I ever downloaded Firefox onto a computer was because IE 7 was so slow & under performing. Even then, someone I knew personally recommended it to me.

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

It's not lying, just disingenuous.

Disingenuousness or modern business practise? Is there a difference?

[Hungry Man]

Honestly mate, I'm surprised that you could even entertain this notion. Most of my work colleagues, who are quite familiar with IT, probably wouldn't know how to download Chrome or that there are real alternatives to IE. I'll bet 7 out of 10 people in the world using Windows just use IE. Trust me on this. The only reason I ever downloaded Firefox onto a computer was because IE 7 was so slow & under performing. Even then, someone I knew personally recommended it to me.

If you think I'm saying that Chrome is the most widely used browser you're confused. I'm not. I'm only saying that I've got numbers and research that says so just like MS does. My entire point is that Chrome is not the most widely used browser.

Disingenuousness or modern business practise? Is there a difference?

Nope, there isn't really. Doesn't mean we can't call it out when we see it.

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

If you think I'm saying that Chrome is the most widely used browser you're confused. I'm not. I'm only saying that I've got numbers and research that says so just like MS does. My entire point is that Chrome is not the most widely used browser.

Oh thank god for that LOL! Sorry, my mistake ... my ADHD must be cutting in again.

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

Nope, there isn't really. Doesn't mean we can't call it out when we see it.

Someone needs to call it out, that's for sure. MS have tried to get away with stuff like this before.

[Bob D]

Originally Posted by guest

...Even old Microsoft Office XML documents can be converted with perfection to the OOXML...

Perfection?

try setting a password on an OOXML spreadsheet file from Office 2007. The document is no longer in OOXML format and the user is given no indication that they are no longer in a documented file format. Is OOXML ready to be an International Standard?

Originally Posted by Bob D

Perfection?

Yeah, perfection isn't the best term to describe what I intended. OOXML has issues of its own. It's good that Microsoft is improving it in newer versions (maybe the issue you described was already fixed in latest versions?). ODF has issues of its own too.

[Hungry Man]

I don't think SPP is against open source. I just don't think he realizes Microsoft is.

[Pinga]

This may enlighten you:

http://www.noooxml.org/

Originally Posted by Pinga

This may enlighten you:

http://www.noooxml.org/

No, this may enlighten you: http://www.iso.org/iso/faqs_isoiec29500

Also, see the interview with ISO Secretary-General Alan Bryden: http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease/...l_iso29500.htm

[Pinga]

How little things have changed

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte..._pr_works.html

Originally Posted by Pinga

How little things have changed

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte..._pr_works.html

"Interesting"...

Originally Posted by Pepe

What was the point of this particular entry? To cover your rear on the fact that you reported a sensationalistic story without bothering to get both sides of the issue first? Why don't you admit that your story, in tone at least, was wrong and deceptive. Windows Update is doing what it has been doing for years. The reasons given in the technet blog are sound and are clear. Yet your descriptions of what the blog says are not clear, as it seems you want to create room for fear, uncertainty, and/or doubt regarding this issue.

Yesterday, over and over, I saw the accusation that if Windows Update is turned completely off (i.e. never check for updates at all), then Windows Update itself still updated itself. This was a flat out lie, or a bad bit of misreporting (though since you refuse to admit the latter, even if it *was* misreporting, it has become a lie).

Someone made an interesting comment here yesterday. If one goes to Linux-Watch, they see veritable love fest regarding Linux and hate for Microsoft. But if one then goes to Microsoft-Watch, perhaps for another point of view, they get more Microsoft hatred. This column jumped the shark long ago, I'm afraid.

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by Pinga

This may enlighten you:

http://www.noooxml.org/

Ooh ... don't ya just hate it when someone stuffs your committee.

[Cudni]

ot posts removed