Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Software IT Linux

ODF Vs. OOXML File Counts On the Web 154

Posted by kdawson
from the numbers-not-lying dept.
mrcgran writes "In eight months since Office 2007 was released to the general public (10 months since release to enterprise customers), there are fewer than 2,000 of these office documents posted on the Web. In the last three months, 13,400 more ODF documents have been added to the Web, with only 1,329 OOXML documents added. It would be hard for the Microsoft camp to spin ten times as many ODF documents added as OOXML documents, especially since 34% of those new documents were added on Microsoft.com. That isn't what I would call good traction for Microsoft's overwhelmingly dominant office suite."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ODF Vs. OOXML File Counts On the Web

Comments Filter:
  • by Shados (741919) on Friday August 17, 2007 @01:58PM (#20265833)
    Thats the main issue. I have Office 2007, and had it for a while. I almost always save in normal DOC for people still using Office 2003...
    • by hairpinred (1142257) on Friday August 17, 2007 @02:12PM (#20266071)
      I personally have found that when trying to open old DOC format files that OpenOffice.org does a much better job than the latest version of Word does.

      Especially if you have any legacy Word 1.0 or 2.0 documents that can't be upgraded to the latest format for contractual reasons - Office 2007 will not open those files correctly, and those files are officially unsupported by Microsoft.

      I'm surprised that more people don't just use .ODF, it's a published, open standard that is as trivial to write a parser for as it is to just unzip the file and look at the XML directly...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Volante3192 (953645)
        Especially if you have any legacy Word 1.0 or 2.0 documents that can't be upgraded to the latest format for contractual reasons

        Offtopic, but I'm just too curious... Would it be possible to explain why these can't be migrated to a newer format? I'd think that'd be dangerously unwise.

        I'm surprised that more people don't just use .ODF, it's a published, open standard that is as trivial to write a parser for as it is to just unzip the file and look at the XML directly...

        Cause we all know how much a success th
        • by phoenixwade (997892) on Friday August 17, 2007 @04:05PM (#20267819)

          Especially if you have any legacy Word 1.0 or 2.0 documents that can't be upgraded to the latest format for contractual reasons
          Offtopic, but I'm just too curious... Would it be possible to explain why these can't be migrated to a newer format? I'd think that'd be dangerously unwise.
          I'm not sure of the parent poster, but we have some electronic documents that are archived from 10 years ago that can't be updated and then re-archived, they must match the printed documents that they produced. We can, and do, convert to a new(er) format when updating a document to be submitted and published now, and to allow those documents to be searched, but the ability to open documents from years ago is critical for one of our customers. We got the job because we were willing to dedicate a system to retrieve those documents in the original format.

          My recommendation was to handle those archives very differently. This client has a decision maker who knows what he wants, and dictates that it is either done that way, or he'll find someone else to do it. So we do it that way, and every year, I make a case for becoming more current, and every year, the answer is no. I don't mind, though, he's paying for the service, and other than this little bit of fear, he's really easy to work with, I've certainly had far more progressive clients that were far more of a PITA.
          • by CastrTroy (595695)
            However, with the way things are going, unless you keep that old software (and operating systems) around so that you can open those files at a later date. If you're worried about printed documents matching the files, you'd be better off converting them to PDF as you get them, to ensure that they match what was printed. THere's been many times when I've opened word files on newer version of Word, only to have my documents look different then they used to.
      • by jbplou (732414)
        I'm surprised that anybody would change there Word Processor at all. I can't imagine a realistic business case for a business that is currently using Word 2000 or 2003 that would show a gain in bottom line by switching it over to Open Office or Office 2007. If you already have the licenses there is no reason to change. 90% of the features of word processors aren't even used by the normal user.
        • by chthon (580889)

          Switching an office suite is a long term commitment. One should start with computing the yearly costs that have been spent in the past X years on them to see what the long term results will be. Then you can compute what can be saved by switching over to a free office suite.

        • by Zeinfeld (263942)
          I'm surprised that anybody would change there Word Processor at all. I can't imagine a realistic business case for a business that is currently using Word 2000 or 2003 that would show a gain in bottom line by switching it over to Open Office or Office 2007. If you already have the licenses there is no reason to change. 90% of the features of word processors aren't even used by the normal user.

          Actually there is an incentive to move to Word 2007, it is the first edition of Word with a citation feature that

    • by Bluesman (104513) on Friday August 17, 2007 @02:18PM (#20266173) Homepage
      I think this is exactly right, and one of the most interesting aspects of Microsoft's business.

      Their whole business is dependent on being the popular standard. But by definition, a standard can't be a moving target, so it has to change very slowly or people will stick with "the old version that everyone has."

      This puts Microsoft between a rock and a hard place, since they'll lose the market if they make too drastic a change, and they'll also lose the market if they don't change at all, and allow other implementations to catch up.

      It's a high-wire balancing act, and while they're very good at it, they're going to slip eventually.

      All of you people worried about Microsoft as a monopoly are freaking out over nothing. In the long term, what they're doing with Windows and Office is not sustainable.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by dmpyron (1069290)
        Of course it's about "standards". Even Microsoft "standards". I've had two professional associations I belong to say that they won't accept anything in WTF the 2007 format is. This is for the benefit of both the office staff and also the referees. I'm still running 2000. That's what the ACM (you know, the computer people) require. The IEEE recommends 2000 but will also accept 2003. The ISSA hasn't taken an official stand, yet. But everything coming out of them is 2000.
      • by Danse (1026)

        All of you people worried about Microsoft as a monopoly are freaking out over nothing. In the long term, what they're doing with Windows and Office is not sustainable.

        People have been saying things like that for years. It hasn't come to pass yet. What may not be sustainable for other companies, Microsoft can pull off due to their political and financial clout. They damn near succeeded in getting OOXML fasttracked due to their financial clout with their partners. They will come up with many many ways to fight off what you seem to think is inevitable.

        • "It hasn't come to pass yet"

          The operative word here is "yet".

          Email me in twenty years - if we still have email - and let me know how it went.

          Just because Microsoft has been around - and dominant - for the last twenty years doesn't mean they will continue to do so for the next 20. Technology is changing too fast to make decades long pronouncements about who's going to be on top. I read somewhere that of most of the top IT companies in the early '80's, most of them went out of business or were bought out by s
          • by Danse (1026)

            Just because Microsoft has been around - and dominant - for the last twenty years doesn't mean they will continue to do so for the next 20.

            I'd rather not have to wait through another 20 years of Microsoft, the 2000lb. gorilla, sitting on top of OEMs and killing off competitors through their shady business practices, stifling the innovation we should be seeing so that they can maintain their monopoly on the desktop OS and application suite. The government took two shots at them. Won both times, and yet they imposed no significant remedy for the problems MS had created. So the only real competition has been from open source channels, and onl

      • Well it's been 12 years since Windows 95 and Office 95 and I don't see either of those cash cows slipping in the slightest. In the meantime Microsoft remains in the way of the proper innovation that competition in that space would provide.
      • by tsa (15680)
        It's a high-wire balancing act, and while they're very good at it, they're going to slip eventually.

        They don't necessarily have to slip. They just have to make a better, more intuitive, easy to use word processor. I can name quite a few things that are wrong with Word 2003 and OpenOffice. But I guess you can too :)
        • by Bluesman (104513)
          "They just have to make a better, more intuitive, easy to use word processor."

          While certainly possible, I think that there are limits to how great you can make a word processor. There comes a point where it's good enough for just about everybody, and I think we've already reached that point. Yeah, there are some problems, but I think those problems are probably inherent to using a general purpose WSIWYG editor than they are problems that can be fixed by a better interface or more features.

          The goal here is
          • by tsa (15680)
            I don't agree with this. There are too many things I come across during writing that could be made easier and more logical. The handling of pictures in Word is abysmal, for instance. Integrating tables into text could be improved. Copy and paste is an issue in 2003... Integrating special characters in the text is difficult in Open Office... I don't think the development of word processors is at its end yet.

            The problem might be that word processors, Open Office and Word alike, are made using a specific conce
            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by geekboybt (866398)
              Like, oh, I don't know... ribbons?! That's it! Ribbons! ...crap.
            • by Bluesman (104513)
              I just think that for the things you mentioned, there is probably just no good way for an easy to use, WSIWYG editor to handle things correctly without some sort of artificial intelligence.

              Some people will want it to act one way, while other will want the complete opposite. That might be true for the same person working on two different documents.

              I think that something like LyX, or even LaTeX, offers a much saner solution to the problems that exist in Word. The "specific concept" you mentioned might just
              • by orasio (188021)

                I just think that for the things you mentioned, there is probably just no good way for an easy to use, WSIWYG editor to handle things correctly without some sort of artificial intelligence.

                Some people will want it to act one way, while other will want the complete opposite. That might be true for the same person working on two different documents.

                I think that something like LyX, or even LaTeX, offers a much saner solution to the problems that exist in Word. The "specific concept" you mentioned might just be that WYSIWYG isn't such a great idea after all.

                While I agree with you that WYSIWYG is not such a great idea (I waited for WYSIWYG editing for years, and when I had WordPerfect 6.0, I was very happy with it, but of course I used the code window a lot, because that was what I thought of as part of the experience, because not only I need to see how it looks like, but also I didn't want to lose the knowledge and the control of what was being written. That is what we lost, now you have the WYSIWIG view, but the view that shows the codes is not logical or ea

        • I'm sure there are many things from a technical and usability point of view wrong with Word 2003 and OpenOffice. But the fact is that both have a familiar interface which has, in many respects, gone unchanged since Word 95/Word 97. Word 2007 is a radical departure, both in file formats and in interface, and I'll argue that, at the moment, any superiority (whether subjective or objective) is meaningless in the corporate world. You sit a secretary down who has been typing her reports for a decade in previo
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ozmanjusri (601766)
          They just have to make a better, more intuitive, easy to use word processor.

          MOOXML isn't about competing with other office suites. It's about preventing competition from thousands of specialised document creation tools.

          If ODF becomes ubiquitous, it will be easy for specialised tools to create documents which can then be opened/parsed by the office suite or by other tools (ie databases, document managers, aggregators etc) in the chain. Instead of having a few easy targets to embrace, extend..., Microsoft

    • Wait a short while for MS to figure out how to game these numbers too.

      All MS has to due is illegally leverage that desktop monopoly again. MS Outlook currently infests a large number of MS Windows desktops. All MS has to do is add a "security" patch that co-incidentally also sets MS Outlook to spew MOOOXML for all formatted messages. Overnight overpopulation of the new formats. Courts are so #$&* slow that by the time the anti-trust papers are served, it'll have been long since over. Of course, c

      • by Ashtead (654610)

        The problem with that one will be everyone who is using some other OS than Windows XP or Vista, or at first, some other mail client than Outlook (including web-based ones such as Gmail), will complain about unreadable e-mails. Of course, this will also be a possible way to stem the tide of spam, at least temporarily, but I feel the effect is that e-mail will become even less reliable than it already is.

    • See here [microsoft.com] and you can save as Office 2007 formats for old Office versions (as long as they have this pack). I also noticed MS keep them updated through Office Update and I still use Office 2000 SP3.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian (840721)
      And that's the crucial thing, at least at the moment. A whole helluva lot of businesses are holding off on Office 2007, so that even those folks that do upgrade are setting Office to save in the older format to guarantee compatibility. Any advantages to the OOXML file format (and quite frankly, from an operational point of view, I don't think there are) are meaningless if everyone is still saving their documents and spreadsheets in the 2000/XP/2003 format.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17, 2007 @02:00PM (#20265847)
    Most of what I and the various people and businesses I've known use this sort of document format for, is the sort of thing that should never in a million years be put out on the web in the first place. If you can count what formats are clogging up large intranets, meybe you've got a clearer picture.
    • by tigre (178245)
      It is very relevant if you're looking at what people use for interchange of public records, which is a significant aspect of the standards battle.
    • by tsa (15680)
      You're right. This [googlefight.com] is more reliable.
    • Mod parent up blah blah. EITHER format is evil. Unless you can show me an aggregator that can interpret either OOXML or ODF. That would be kewl.

      We just paid a lot of money for a bloated shiteware CMS that can sort of do this with DOC files. Even it will convert the DOC file to PDF on the fly for those of us too l33t to read DOC files.
  • Yeah, but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by everphilski (877346) on Friday August 17, 2007 @02:01PM (#20265869) Journal
    what about the number of .doc files generated in the same timeframe? :)
    • Is this proof that nobody really cares about an open document format?

      How does it benefit most people? Not at all. Everybody can already read the MS docs they create since everybody already has MS Office.
    • It seems logical that ODF would be used more since it's the non-widely-used (read non-MS Office) software that implements that format. These people must convert to something for others to be able to read it (usually either MS Office format or ODF). MS Office users don't need to convert their docs to anything. Almost everybody can already read Word or Excel documents.
    • Old word formats are still a poor way to share documents and are probably outnumbered by pdf.

      The new formats are supposed to address these problems and deliver a fundamental promise of electronic editing: seemless collaboration. The M$ format is really more of the same old M$ only, version dependent stuff M$ has always served. Because it offers no real improvement, it's adoption will have to be forced. ODF, on the other hand, offers a choice of editors and OS, and is being used by people. Free and ope

      • ...that MS Office supports ODF just fine [betanews.com]. You'll probably find some of the docs on-line even came from Office.
        • This would be wonderful if it were true.

          MS Office supports ODF just fine.

          What I've read does not support the assertion. In the last year, M$ has made a few converters that imperfectly use the text document branch of ODF. These converters are poorly integrated into Office and not at all into the OS, so using ODF on a M$ platform without Open Office is painful.

          If a user wants ODF, you would think that they would just get Open Office. It's interface is more familiar than Office 2007 and the user gets

          • "text document branch"? Sounds like rubbish to me.

            Have another article on it if you want - http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126331-page,1/ar ticle.html?tk=nl_dnxnws [pcworld.com] - no mention of partial implementations there, or otherwise there's always the good old community to help out - http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter [sourceforge.net]

            Also, as it turns out the UI for Office 2007 isn't so bad after all - http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=201800612&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News [informationweek.com]
            Think logically for
            • > Also, as it turns out the UI for Office 2007 isn't so bad after all.

              it is different, that's the problem. joe user will have to spend time to relearn how to do the same stuff with the new program. I installed firefox on machines at work exactly one day after they were "upgraded" to IE7, guess why.

              > Microsoft have in fairness spent a fair few billion on this new interface. That's more effort and investment than OO will ever get, ever, so the chances are it is going to be easier for users.

              Two problems
              • Different it may be, but certainly for the better I'd say, and as my previously supplied link suggested - the "learning curve" has been vastly over-stated. Having upgraded a long time ago, I too found myself hunting for the odd feature here & there, but nothing the help system can't highlight in a matter of seconds and overall a far more intuitive interface. Either way, I'm not alone on this opinion.

                And sorry, but personally the whole "M$ Windoze security suck0rz!" thing is frankly so out of date. There
      • The new formats are supposed to address these problems and deliver a fundamental promise of electronic editing: seemless collaboration.

        The focus of Microsoft's collaboration effort with Office 2007 isn't just formats, it focusses on moving people from the plain-old-web to Sharepoint servers for collaboration, which wouldn't show up in Google indexes.

        So, if Microsoft were successful, there would be zero OOXML documents found via Google on the web that were there for the purpose of "seamless collaboration".

        I

    • by EvilRyry (1025309)
      doc files are the last generation. Nobody cares how many DVDs are being sold when looking towards the future, they're looking at the next generation Blue-ray and HDDVD sales. Likewise, nobody cares about doc files. The important question for our future is OOXML vs ODF.
      • There is a stark difference. There is a great capacity increase between Blue-Ray, HDDVD and DVD. What is the driving force behing yet another office format? The existing one works just fine. Upgrading media is a no brainer because we have hit the limits. We haven't hit the limits of an office format, yet.
    • 45.5 Million new .doc files were added in the last 3 months.

      Yeah, using the logic of this article, ODF is a dismal failure... lol
  • public consumption (Score:2, Insightful)

    by snilloc (470200)
    Anything shared for public consumption would use the more compatible .doc
  • by 3seas (184403) on Friday August 17, 2007 @02:04PM (#20265925) Journal
    ....committee but rather by popular use.....

    ODF is apparently 10 times more a standard than OOXML.

    And I bet its all because its easier to spell.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And I bet its all because its easier to spell.

      I tried open office once and it was buggy and crashed a lot. So why should I use the Open Office XML format, when I can use the trusted Office Document Format?
    • Good reasons why Open XML is suboptimal can be found on
      http://www.noooxml.org/ [noooxml.org]
      the website you won't find on wikipedia thank to their astroturf editors.

      Open XML is broken XML. And the patent licensing conditions look like a minefield.

      Microsoft should adopt OpenDocument.
  • And...so? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday August 17, 2007 @02:04PM (#20265933)

    In eight months since Office 2007 was released to the general public (10 months since release to enterprise customers), there are fewer than 2,000 of these office documents posted on the Web.


    Probably because most people creating documents with Office 2007 for the web are either:
    1) Converting them to PDF or XPS if they aren't meant to be edited, or
    2) Converting them to Office 97-2003 format if they are meant to be edited, since the majority of the Microsoft Office-using audience will be using older versions of the office suite.

    I don't think counting documents on the web is particularly a useful way to try to measure the dominance of office suites or their associated file formats. Its, perhaps, an easy measure, but not a meaningful one.
    • by ednopantz (467288)
      Yeah, but it is ok for fueling the Slashbot "2 Minutes Microsoft Hate"
    • I don't think counting documents on the web is particularly a useful way to try to measure the dominance of office suites or their associated file formats. Its, perhaps, an easy measure, but not a meaningful one.

      Agreed, but only if you're a rational sort.

      I'm reminded of my head exploding some years ago when I read about Bill Gates' disappointment at learning that of all the rich and varied content available on the web, so little of it was offered in .doc file format.

      My head has exploded many times since the
    • I don't think counting documents on the web is particularly a useful way to try to measure the dominance of office suites or their associated file formats.
      It's measuring the usage of a particular standard. It's pretty clear that nobody uses OOXML, anyone using MS Office simply continues to use DOC.

       
      • Yes. But open xml has special features. It prevents a switch to a real XML format. http://www.noooxml.org/petition [noooxml.org]
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DragonWriter (970822)

        It's measuring the usage of a particular standard.

        No, its not. It's measure the usage of a particular standard for interchange on the portion of the web indexed by Google. It doesn't measure what's used for interchange by different paths than the web, by log-in based sites on the web, or what is used for non-interchange (i.e., archive) use.

        Since one of the main motives for choosing a standardized format for office documents is future-proof archiving of internal documents, and since it doesn't measure that u

    • by fermion (181285)
      So what you are saying is that OOXML has such poor support that people who use it feel compelled to save it in a more universal forma, while ODF is sufficiently universal that people feel comfortable posting it as is.

      In any case, your first point, that people save in PDF, is of no real issue. First, the study, as flawed as it may be, is meant to indicate formats that are universal enough to be predictably exchanged. Second, the same argument applies to ODF, only more so. I, for instance, seldom post in

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DragonWriter (970822)

        So what you are saying is that OOXML has such poor support that people who use it feel compelled to save it in a more universal forma, while ODF is sufficiently universal that people feel comfortable posting it as is.

        No, what I'm saying is that people using Office 2007 to post documents on the Web (hardly its primary use) are usually targetting an audience where Office 97-2003 is a more useful interchange format (since lots of people have older versions of Office), while people posting ODF documents on the

      • by Gnavpot (708731)

        So what you are saying is that OOXML has such poor support that people who use it feel compelled to save it in a more universal forma, while ODF is sufficiently universal that people feel comfortable posting it as is.

        I dare to ask: So what?

        OOXML does not have to actually be used to serve its purpose for MS. It just has to be accepted as an (pseudo)open, possible alternative to the existing old formats. This will probably be enough to stop critical questions from buyers who want support for open standards.

  • Bad metric (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BuR4N (512430) on Friday August 17, 2007 @02:06PM (#20265959) Homepage Journal
    "That isn't what I would call good traction for Microsoft's overwhelmingly dominant office suite"

    Its a worthless metric, how many OOXML have been stored in various internal Sharepoint servers around the world ?

    • by guruevi (827432)
      Well, having implemented ShitPoint 2007, nobody uses OOXML, everybody still uses the DOC or PDF formats. Even XPS is hardly used (only by documentation originating from Microsoft)

      Nobody wants to switch to Office 2007 because 1) it's expensive, 2) it's more difficult to use, 3) it needs major retraining.

      I am going on as a Mac Sysadmin now (quit the other job) and I don't think a lot of people are going to upgrade to Office 2008 for Mac either, I think they stay with the current implementation and switch to O
      • Nobody wants to switch to Office 2007 because...

        That's funny. In my own anectdotal experience, on the 15 flights i've taken in the last 3 months, every single time i've seen someone open up a (non-mac) laptop, they've had Office 2007 running. Probably 25 different people, randomly encountered. The ribbon bar is very noticable, even if you're just glancing in someones direction.

        Now, maybe it's just that people that regularly fly on business trips have extra money lying around to upgrade, but it kind of bl
  • Another question is, what the market share of office 2007 vs an ODF compliant suite? If there's 10 million people with ODF capabilities, and only 1 million with OOXML, doesn't this make sense?

    The question is not how many now, but it's how many will there be 5 years from now.
  • Buffoons... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In 12 minutes since this post was released 100% have called this a stupid piece of trash. That is hard to put a spin on.

    ***captcha is buffoons***
  • Bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17, 2007 @02:10PM (#20266035)
    Why exactly is this tagged "linux"? As though magically all thing FOSS revolve around Linux? Because there being more ODF docs out there, is suddenly a win for Linux, instead of a win for Open Office and FOSS in general?

    "That isn't what I would call good traction for Microsoft's overwhelmingly dominant office suite."

    The fact that it is an "overwhelmingly dominant office suite" is traction enough. Compare how many users are using any other suite, to the amount running Office. And filecount means something now? By this logic, should be now abandon Ogg Vorbis, FLAC and other audio formats because the number of .mp3s out there completely overshadows them? Should be dismiss Linux and OS X as insignificant sheerly on the basis that there are astronomically more Windows boxen out there? But wait, this is different somehow (because the OSS variant has the numerical advantage) less asinine than, oh, I don't know, basing security on the number of known vulnerabilities that we here on Slashdot love to complain about, isn't it?

    And this whole "t would be hard for the Microsoft camp to spin ten times as many ODF documents added as OOXML documents" continually searching for, and boasting any little flaw or inconsistency or what-have-you, no matter how insignificant is really both absurd and childish.
     
    • Nor is there a F/OSS category, or a GNU category, as far as I remember when I last tried to submit a story.

      Seems to me, "Linux" is as good as anything to describe this.
    • by a.d.trick (894813)

      ODF doesn't even have necessary connection to FOSS. It's just another open standard, like HTML.

      As for why this story is interesting? Well, it might be a stretch, but it is possible that there is some correlation between the document counts and the popularity of the formats. That seems almost as likely as our anecdotal evidence on the obscurity of ODF. It wouldn't be news to hear that ODF went largely unused, we would alread assume as much. The fact that there is evidence to the contrary is at least interes

  • Office 2007 users don't like posting documents on the interweb.
  • Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vellmont (569020) on Friday August 17, 2007 @02:23PM (#20266239) Homepage
    The REAL document format, PDF has millions of documents on the web.

    Do I really care what format people pass around documents they intend to edit, as long as they publish them in what's become the standard format for end-users, i.e. pdf?

    The problem, as I see it is people are using ODF/.doc/Microsoft-whatever to often for documents that are really supposed to be just electronically published documents. I.e, not intended to be editied (though obviously you can with the right software).
  • by trifish (826353)
    I've never seen a single ODF document on any website. But I've seen a lot of .docs and zillions of .pdfs.
  • Make a patch for there older office systems like 2003 which allows them to save to there OOXML. Now this concept will go right over M$'s head as they will say "well why would we do that, then there is no reason to update to 2007". Well thats what people say now, why go to this new system when 2003 works just fine, dose all we need and hey everyone can read and modify ours docs. We upgrade we will have to save in the doc format because hey then everyone can deal with the document basically. But if they make
  • How long will it be before MSFT posts a massive number of ooxml docs on line to spin the numbers? How long will it take to write a script to convert a bunch of doc files and translate them into ooxml and post it in some site or the other?

    What would be significant is, if public in some county or school district sues the Govt agency claiming, they have a fundamental right to get Govt documents in a format that is not saddled with proprietary burdens, they should have the right to process these docs and for

  • This just proves that OOXML is not needed (yet). Everybody continues to use .doc or odf.
  • Most business and professional users aren't writting their documents to put them on the web.
    • I see plenty of cases where documents are put on the web. I just recently filled out an application for a grant for a non-profit organization I'm involved with. They had an application form that we had to fill out and made it available as both a MS Word and PDF file.
  • Apple and Oranges (Score:3, Insightful)

    by in10se (472253) on Friday August 17, 2007 @03:18PM (#20267099) Homepage
    1. Most people using Office 2007 are still saving their documents in XP/2003 format, so don't confuse the use of the format with the use of the software. In addition, Office 2007 has built-in support for PDF which is a better choice of format for the web.
    2. You can't expect major corporations OR small businesses to jump formats overnight (and yes, 7 months is "overnight" when you are talking about major software changes).
    3. ODF is output by various free software. More people are willing to download, upload, and play with free software. Geeks are more likely to play with free software. Geeks are more likely to upload documents to the web than normal internet users.
    4. Word processing documents (in either format) aren't really meant for the web anyway.

    All of these things will lower the number of OOXML documents on the web even if the use of Office 2007 is growing. Any opinions of Microsoft, Linux, Office aside, the comparison in TFA means absolutely nothing.

  • It would be hard for the Microsoft camp to spin ten times as many ODF documents added as OOXML documents, especially since 34% of those new documents were added on Microsoft.com.

    Man, relative comparison really makes this sound tough for Microsoft. 10x more ODF! 34% on Microsoft!
    If only we could skip the part with the absolute numbers, where it turns out this is about mere several thousands of documents found on the web (of either format).

    Congratulations on the self-referring sarcasm about the spin though.

    Ap
  • even if ms bought entire international standards boards and pushed their format, whatever public prefers to use will be the format to stay, and in time even goverment agencies will have to switch to the format public has chosen by their invisible hand. it has happened many times before and this is no exception.
  • Um, maybe because the corporate world with corporate secrets (whether they should be or not) use Office and don't put their works up on the web; and those who do tend to publish are typically in the open source camp?

  • I work for a small company, about 50 employees, we have one person using Office 2007 because he got to select his own Dell machine. The rest are all on 2003, guess what format everybody is using? You got it .doc - so these numbers are misleading.
    • by PitaBred (632671)
      What do you mean they're misleading? They're saying that most people haven't moved to Office 2007 in the almost year since it's been released (which your numbers support), and people aren't using the new formats. In comparison, people are increasingly using applications that create ODF files, especially as compared to those who're using OOXML. .doc format isn't anywhere in the equation.
  • Over the same time a million plus HTML documents were added to the Web and we can actually read them. Both ODF and OOXML are completely and utterly obsolete and useless. If the user's work is stored by their tools as HTML+CSS+JS then that would enable the user, that would be something other than software programmers wanking away for their visions of world domination.
  • with the release of Open Office, there is simply no reason to buy office anymore, it will work just fine for most people.
  • Before drawing biased conclusions:

    That isn't what I would call good traction for Microsoft's overwhelmingly dominant office suite

    ... you really need to keep in mind that Office 2007 users are more than likely to save their docs as the traditional .doc formats to remain backwards compatible with Office 2003 and earlier! It would be crazy to start using the ODF format for pretty much any reason in the same year as the product has been released, and require all users of earlier suites to install the Office 20

Loose bits sink chips.

Working...