The cost of ODF and OOXML or why MS is lying

http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_cost_of_ODF_and_OOXML.html

 

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.

 

"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.

 

ot posts removed

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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

 

Yes, I do.

http://swiki.net/statcounter-chrome-is-the-most-widely-used-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.

 

Too right mate!

 

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/Microsoft_Open_Specification_Promise

 

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.

Disingenuousness or modern business practise? Is there a difference?

 

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.

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

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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: www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease/interview_iso_secretary-general_iso29500.htm

 

How little things have changed

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/how_microsoft_blogging_pr_works.html

 

"Interesting"...

 

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

 

ot posts removed