Text 7338, 79 rader
Skriven 2005-09-29 22:32:40 av Adam (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 7334 av Robert G Lewis (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Fox in the pocket of big business?
==============================================
From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"@the field.near the bridge">

Robert G Lewis wrote:
> "Adam" <mmmmm_beer_mmmm_donuts@moes> wrote in message
> news:433c1441$1@w3.nls.net...
>
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170724,00.html
>>
>>What a loathsome puff piece on behalf of those with money. SOP for fox I
>>suppose.
>>
>>Adam
>
>
> I liked this
>
> "For many needs, such applications do not exist and will have to be built
> from the ground up. In other cases, the OpenDocument solution may cost more
> and provide less, but agencies and citizens will have to pay the price and
> make do"
>
> Has this idiot ever tried to convert a proprietary document from a system
> you no longer have, in a version of software  that was dropped years ago ?
> How about a few thousand documents? Or in the case of a state a few million
> ? THAT would cost some real time and money. Maybe I should find some of the
> WordPerfect 4.???? from a Data General and see how he likes converting a few
> thousand <g>
>

The whole piece is riddled with purposefull inaccuracies masquerading as facts.
As an example is is based on a pseudo-technical piece by a bod called coursey
where he pretended to be relating facts (e.g. that OpenOffice2 is the only
Office suite which does Opendocument where 1.1.5 does & so does KOffice,
gnumeric & I think abiword is headed to that point as well.

Simple checkable facts which would have clashed with the money MS was most
probably shelling out. Ah well you get what you pay for I suppose.


> OpenDocument MAY cost more money , Yeah it MAY also save a lot of money.
> And this
>

& you know MS Office WILL cost lots of dineros & that the move from
wordperfect & 123 to word & excel also cost mucho dinero etc.

> "Many technology writers, in fact, have cast a skeptical eye on OpenDocument
> and applications that support the format. George Ou, writing on ZDNet,
> recently compared the new Open Office Calc product to Microsoft Excel and
> found it lacking, writing, "[i]f someone from Open Office can explain why it
> takes more than 100 times longer to create and load spreadsheet documents
> and why it uses up several more times memory that Microsoft Excel to work
> with the same data, I'd love to hear it." "
>
> Okay so don't use Open Office calc but what the hell does that have to do
> with the attack on OpenDocument ? hey how about Microsoft supporting
> OpenDocument without any proprietary extensions ?
>
> Loathsome is an understatement <g>
>

Oh it's worse than that. Excel files are vastly larger (for no reason I can
think of) kilobytes vs megabytes sort of thing. & hey if you wanted to store 1
large number of both then oo would save you money on storage etc. Even
funnier.....given MS is going for an xml file format & given XML's fungible
basis there is absolutely no reason why MS can't support OD anyway.

Oh sorry yes there is one reason.......i think the term is "chokehold".

So it's odd that Mr Ou never gave the time taken for MS to save as OD but did
give times for both to save as an xl file.

Heck Excel save as OD....that will take years....literally.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)