Microsoft Vista to take over?

[Member2019]

OS v. applications ... and more on Office 12 (2007) and OpenXML ...

Prof, I am no computer whiz,

No one is a "computer whiz," people just have their experience -- and some experience in some areas more than others.

but do I understand it correctly that all the Excel (for example) databases will have to be manually re-written fro the new Vista/Office combo?

Microsoft Windows Vista (NT version 6.0), the OS, and Microsoft Office 2007 (Office version 12), the application (or set of applications) aren't related other than timing in release.

Now with that said, understand Office 12 (2007) is Microsoft's first attempt at a real portable codebase for Office.
All current MS Office for Mac releases are non-native, heavily hacked, from their initial Windows release.
Microsoft has had to change how Office 12 works for future portability (e.g., 64-bit).
All prior version of Office had nasty histories of binary incompatibility, largely because the formats changed slightly between releases.
A lot of this had to do with the codebase, ignoring data alignment (which is allowed on 16/32-bit x86, but not other processors like the Mac's PowerPC, nor x86-64 for that matter), etc...

To this end, MS Office 12 now encodes everything into XML formats, which Microsoft calls OpenXML.
It's a long story to explain, but understand XML is not an "open, end-user" standard, it's a standard for creating vendor-centric standards.
OpenXML is largely being used to encode and encapsulate existing binary objects for Office meta-data (seemingly Base64 from what I've seen).
That makes the format portable and much longer lasting, between versions.
But "OpenXML" itself is hardly an "open" standard, and has many IP strings attached.
In comparison, everyone from IBM to Novell to Sun, and major users like Boeing (the US' #1 exporter) to several US states use Open Document Format (ODF) XML.
All of ODF's IP has been signed over to the OASIS, which is the industry defacto standard organization for XML publication.
Microsoft's ********** to the EMCA does not cover IP issues, and it doesn't document Microsoft's encapsulation of encoded binary objects (which still make up most of the meta-data in MS Office 12 formats).

Now MS Office 12 (2007) actually handles legacy Office 8/9/10/11 (97/2000/XP-2002/2003) decently, at least newer 10 and 11 versions (XP-2002 and 2003).
I am now personally running MS Word 12 (2007) myself, just got it yesterday, and it's doing fine with the Office 11 (2003) documents I threw at it, but barfed on an older version 9 (2000) document.
There are some conflicting tags between those older versions and newer versions.

If you have a lot of older MS Office 8, 9 or 10 (97, 2000 or XP-2002), let alone MS Office 6 or 7 (95), I highly recommend Corel PerfectOffice or OpenOffice.org/StarOffice.
They handle import/conversion/export much better than MS Office 12 (2007) or even 11 (2003), let alone Office 12 (2007) doesn't even do Office 6 or 7 (95) formats anymore.
Microsoft even used Sun (who owns all copyright to OpenOffice.org, and funds most of the developers on the project, who also write StarOffice) to develop many of the "Compatibility Mode" filters.
Sun has had a broad cross-patent/development license with Microsoft since 2003, which not even most in the Linux world realize (hence why the MS Office import/conversion filters in OpenOffice.org 2.0/StarOffice 8 for newer Office 11/2003 documents got even better).

StarOffice 9 (and most likely OpenOffice.org 3 as well, depending on the IP arguments) will support OpenXML.
Novell and Sun are working on the import/conversion filters, as they both have broad agreements with Microsoft.
As does Corel, who still makes a well respected word processing product that law and medical offices have used for over 20 years.
Document longevity is a big thing when it comes to such professions, as not being able to edit a format less than 10 years old is unacceptable, or losing formatting when it's not even 5 years old.
Hence why Boeing is even adopting ODF, and supported it's standardization.

BTW, I actually started using StarOffice 3.0 on Windows back in 1995, and can still read my documents perfectly in StarOffice 8 some 12 years later.
I adopted StarOffice back (mid-90s) then because I read Ami Pro 3 documents (Ami Pro was the best combination of desktop publishing, DTP, app and word processing in one).
I finally made my switch permanent with the new Office 8 (97) wouldn't read my Office 7 (95) templates and documents, or just destroyed formatting, so I gave up.
At the same time, I can pass those old StarOffice documents on to anyone with the free OpenOffice.org suite, as it reads them too, all the way back to those legacy formats.
Despite what people assume, OpenOffice.org/StarOffice actually have features MS Office does not, and StarOffice has for a long time.
E.g., HTML export and other feature were in it over 2 years before Microsoft finally added them to Office.

So the "good news" with Office 12 (2007) is that you're going to get better document longevity than before.
But the "bad news" is that it's still using a lot of binary data (only encoded/encapsulated in XML), so it's no less "open."

BTW, your sig is absolutely ***********. I can stare at it for ages.

Britney Swallows has a seriously sweet set of hourglass curves, especially in that crotchless body stocking.

 

[Member2019]

Yep, Microsoft is being really stupid ...

From Apple Insider:

The software giant (Microsoft) may even have inadvertently discouraged the technically savvy from buying into its plans by seemingly punishing those who buy upgrade copies of Vista. A thorough look at the End-User License Agreement for the Microsoft package has revealed that the license key for an existing version of Windows becomes invalid the moment a Vista upgrade is installed. This would all but make it ******* in the company's eyes to use the earlier software, even on the same system as part of a multi-boot solution.

Microsoft hadn't said in the EULA that it would deliberately block activations of new Windows XP installs, but has already taken heat from the Internet community for allegedly driving honest upgrade buyers towards full-sized (and thus more expensive) copies of Vista. When combined with the newly-added hassle of installing the old OS instead of simply validating the old disc as in the past, many are asking just who, if anyone, Redmond hopes to entice with its much-delayed refresh.

They are alienating their biggest customers with this.
Although some "Enterprise" licensees get "Activation-free" copies, many are still barking at this type of non-sense.
Consumers shouldn't tolerate it and flood their support lines.
It's funny, when you play these games, you actually cost yourself more money in support.

Two out of Three American consumers actually pay for their software, and that's according to the Software Publisher's Association (SPA), the guys that can come ransack your company with an audit under law.
Intuit (Quicken/Quickbooks) evaluated this long ago and realized their activation was costing them almost 50% of their profit in support.
Which means that even if they lose 33% of their profit due to piracy, it's more profitable not to have activation.

Of course, piracy rates outside the US are much higher -- from 92% (only 8% legit) in Japan to 99% (only 1% legit) in Singapore and China.
That's why Microsoft still pushes it on Americans, just like everyone else.
Intuit, on the other hand, caters to largely American or western consumers and small businesses, so they are of less concern.

 

[alexios]

Just wait until Google decides to release their own OS...they'll crush everyone!

 

[Member2019]

Google is the new Microsoft, but they aren't doing an OS ...

Just wait until Google decides to release their own OS...they'll crush everyone!

Google is the new Microsoft, but they aren't doing an OS.
That would be foolish, as they have built their flexibility at the Internet server end, not the consumer.
The margins and profitability are much better in the end, especially from a support aspect.

But Google has always been, and will always be, based on cheap PCs running a free OS (Linux from day 1, Linux still today).
They were the first to take the concept of cheap PCs running Linux with a memory-only, distributed database, for Internet indexing.
They started with a few thousand, then ramped up to 45,000, and then the rest is history.
Altavista, Yahoo and countless other engines using large, shared-memory systems with massive disk just couldn't keep up with the design.
After all, Internet indexing -- when localized -- is an ideal application that scales linearly across segmented systems such as a massive Linux cluster.

 

[pathfinder]

Question about Linux: Can you run MS and MS-based software on Linux? Like Word, Photoshop, etc?

If it wasn't for the additional price of replacing all my software (Office, Photoshop, Macromedia, etc) I'd probably give serious thought to switching to Mac. But those suites are a little expensive. Granted I'm still using older versions (Photoshop CS, Office xp) so I might be able to score them one fleaBay for a decent price.

 

[alexios]

Re: Google is the new Microsoft, but they aren't doing an OS ...

Google is the new Microsoft, but they aren't doing an OS.
That would be foolish, as they have built their flexibility at the Internet server end, not the consumer.
The margins and profitability are much better in the end, especially from a support aspect.

But Google has always been, and will always be, based on cheap PCs running a free OS (Linux from day 1, Linux still today).
They were the first to take the concept of cheap PCs running Linux with a memory-only, distributed database, for Internet indexing.
They started with a few thousand, then ramped up to 45,000, and then the rest is history.
Altavista, Yahoo and countless other engines using large, shared-memory systems with massive disk just couldn't keep up with the design.
After all, Internet indexing -- when localized -- is an ideal application that scales linearly across segmented systems such as a massive Linux cluster.

HA! Google can do anything!!! :bowdown:

Seriously though, I've given a lot of thought to going to Linux, as I'm fed-up with Microsoft and their ************* to advance and adapt to a rapidly changing marketplace. Would changing to Linux cause any problems with my software or hardware? How do I do it or where is the best place to read up on it?

 

[dave_rhino]

I watched an interview with Bill Gates about Vista, and he mentioned something off topic which made me sick.

When asked what how he thought technology will have progressed in 10 years, he said he thinks all paper text books will be gone from schools, and all ******** will have a tablet styled computer in front of them.

So basicly he wants **** to stop writing? Yes, nice one Bill. You dirty little cunt.

 

[D-rock]

I watched an interview with Bill Gates about Vista, and he mentioned something off topic which made me sick.

When asked what how he thought technology will have progressed in 10 years, he said he thinks all paper text books will be gone from schools, and all ******** will have a tablet styled computer in front of them.

So basicly he wants **** to stop writing? Yes, nice one Bill. You dirty little cunt.

Stuff like that always sounds nice to say, but it reminds me of how 60 years ago people thought we would have flying cars at this time and live on the moon. I have a feeling it will take a little longer than that. Plus in a lot of ways I still prefer the paper books. Don't even get me started about how irritating it would be to write math problems out on a computer screen.

 

[dave_rhino]

But it's not a nice thing to say, why would anyone want school **** to stop writing? Can you imagine, if it happened, what everyones handwriting would be like in 40 years time? No one would have a clue. It's a disgusting thought.

Fuck you BillyG.

 

[Sjon]

all the same to me, about time they put a stable system in the bios, something like the Amiga was, waaay back, no installing hard/software, this 2007, can be done right? but yeah, money ey

 

[georges]

upgrade to windows xp professional 64 bits, there are no real drivers taht are fully compatible with vista. and vista is a mac osx rip off. I am going to use xp pro 3 more years.

 

[om3ga]

Stuff like that always sounds nice to say, but it reminds me of how 60 years ago people thought we would have flying cars at this time and live on the moon.

You never know.......

Back on-topic. I've had this laptop for nearly a year - methinks I'll wait (for the bugs to be ironed out)

 

[tunsty]

I'm still running 98Se and will continue to do so as long as it allows me to play games, surf the net, edit audio/video etc etc etc...

I'm not filling Mr Gates pockets with my hard-earned cash.

 

[georges]

I'm still running 98Se and will continue to do so as long as it allows me to play games, surf the net, edit audio/video etc etc etc...

I'm not filling Mr Gates pockets with my hard-earned cash.

I have used windows 98 from 1998 till 2002 and it was very helpful. But xp is more bug resistant.

 

[MRPIMPN4EVA]

So is this gonna replace XP?

 

[Member2019]

If you want to run Windows apps, Linux is never the solution ...

Question about Linux: Can you run MS and MS-based software on Linux? Like Word, Photoshop, etc?

No, Linux does not run Windows applications.
Heck, many different Microsoft Windows versions cannot run Windows applications from other versions.
Linux can partially emulate Windows environments, or you can use hardware emulation to run a full copy of Windows atop.

But you don't want to go to Linux to run Windows applications.
Linux is not a better Windows than Windows for Windows applications.
People run applications, not OSes, so your choice of OS should be based on applications.

I run Linux as my primary desktop at home and work for almost a decade, because it's what I use to conduct all my personal and professional affairs, including at client sites.
Linux consulting is how I've made the overwhelming majority of my money for the last decade, but I'm a realist on where it will and won't work for people.

If it wasn't for the additional price of replacing all my software (Office, Photoshop, Macromedia, etc)

OpenOffice.org is based on StarOffice, which is not just a "MS Office clone."
It has been its own entity for almost a decade and a half, and OpenOffice.org/StarOffice are know for maintaining better backward compatibility, as well as Corel and Lotus.
Photoshop and Macromedia products are up to Adobe, and so far, Adobe has not released any.
Intuit (Quicken) is in the same boat, and much of this is due to their being "cut off" from early Microsoft API documentation if they started formally supporting Linux.

Now Photoshop runs fairly well under emulation, thanx large to Disney and several others.
Disney used to maintain 2-3 computers on their animators desks -- 1 Linux for Maya, high-rendering and about 60% of the tools, 1 (optional) MacOS X to run a more desktop tools (largely Adobe/Macromedia), and 1 for just Photoshop.
Disney put forth the people on **** to get Photoshop to work so they could remove 30,000 Windows desktops at various internal, subsidary and 3rd party locations.
It was a major support burden that saved them over $3M/year once they didn't have to have Windows just to run Photoshop.
It wasn't even really that they were producing new Photoshop images, but reading and editing old legacy, original files (and not the end-use bitmapped/scaled versions).

I'd probably give serious thought to switching to Mac.
But those suites are a little expensive.

The problem with MS Office on Mac is that it's interoperability is horrendous, because the Windows developers don't take data alignment and cross-platform details into consideration.
That's why sending a document to Mac is okay, but sending back to Windows is typically an issue -- at least pre-MS Office 12 (2007).
Then again Microsoft hasn't weighed in on a MS Office 12 port, and it seems Apple and Microsoft have finally split.

Back in the MS Office 97 (Windows) and 98 (MacOS) days, you couldn't even read Excel from each other's platform -- the Microsoft docs literally recommended CSV (comma separated values!).
Word and most other apps were almost as bad too.
That's why any "Linux port" of MS Office would suck just as bad as the MacOS versions, Microsoft has never maintained any cross-platform compatibility well, and the Windows team doesn't think 1 second about it (leaving it to the Mac team inside MS who curses them).
It was just like MS IE for MacOS X (let alone Solaris), it didn't render a lot of MS IE-only sites, because they are really Windows-only sites.

Granted I'm still using older versions (Photoshop CS, Office xp) so I might be able to score them one fleaBay for a decent price.

If you're running MS Office 10 (2002/XP) or earlier, you'll typically have better document compatibility with Corel, Lotus or Sun/OpenOffice.org, especially 8/9 (97/2000).

Older versions of Photoshop run well under **** emulation (used in Crossover Office) in Linux, again, thanx to a lot of work put forth by Disney.
But I only recommend going that direction if you were in the same boat as Disney, only 1-2 Windows apps, everything else Linux.

 

[Member2019]

XP x64 is NOT 64-bit ...

upgrade to windows xp professional 64 bits, there are no real drivers taht are fully compatible with vista. and vista is a mac osx rip off. I am going to use xp pro 3 more years.

XP x64 is NOT 64-bit, but merely a 64-bit kernel with virtually 99.7% 32-bit libraries and programs -- i.e., it is still considered very much "Win32."
It can actually run 64-bit applications slower because of the WoW (Win32 on Win64) API calls made internally.
Epic Megagames did this test with the original Unreal Tournament 2004 32-bit v. 64-bit versions.
UT64 on XP x64 < (slower than) UT on XP x64 < (slower than) UT on XP
Microsoft pushes the "dirty work" of including 64-bit libraries and support on the 64-bit application developers.

Microsoft doesn't ship a full 64-bit implementation for compatibility reasons.
A lot of it has to do with the fact that 64-bit libraries (actually 48-bit "long/flat" addressing) cannot use 32-bit (actually 48-bit "segmented" addressing) programs and vice-versa.
It's a major PITA, so Microsoft doesn't bother, they just ship 32-bit libraries and expect 64-bit applications to "BYOL" (bring your own libraries).

The Linux world has its issues to, and most Linux distributions don't even deal with a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit, just a "pure" 64-bit (which has application issues).
Red Hat and Novell/SuSE are the only 2 major distributors that build a "pure" 64-bit with sufficient 32-bit compatibility layer.
But in that case, UT64 on Linux/x86-64 spanked all Windows versions, although that could be partially because UT is developed on Linux (like most games, including all Nintendo and Sony devkits since the GameCube and PS2).
Hell, even portions of Halo (the movie) and Halo 3 are farmed out to major Linux studio houses.

 

[Member2019]

The problem with Linux is the (Microsoft-controlled) superstore model ...

HA! Google can do anything!!! :bowdown:
Seriously though, I've given a lot of thought to going to Linux, as I'm fed-up with Microsoft and their ************* to advance and adapt to a rapidly changing marketplace. Would changing to Linux cause any problems with my software or hardware? How do I do it or where is the best place to read up on it?

The problem with Linux is the (Microsoft-controlled) "superstore" model.
I won't go into this, as enough people have talked about it, but in general, hardware is only designed to work for 1 Windows version.
Over 90% of American consumers are willing to pay for a new computer and OS and applications and peripherals every 2-3 years.
When they upgrade one, and find out the other 3 don't work with it, they just buy new versions of the other 3.

This is intentional, including the hardware being very proprietary these days.
You have hundreds of vendors, but literally only 3-5 different Chinese or Tawainese fabs, a half dozen more software driver writers licensing the same driver for slightly modified/different models, etc...
Tracking those changes are a major PITA for Linux kernel developers, whereas Microsoft (and often Apple) get their drivers "included for free."

In the business world, it's very different, and most corporations have balked at Microsoft trying to push the "every 2-3 years" model on them.
That's where Linux has made major in-roads, especially when there isn't the constant "upgrade hardware" push just to do basic enterprise details like directory, file, print, etc... services.
Linux is also the mainstay of embedded now -- from missile defense to VoIP phones to TiVO (and knock-offs).
But such areas where Linux is dominate wasn't really the mainstay of Windows anyway, but has prevented Microsoft from making any in-roads.

I don't recommend jumping into Linux until you recognize what applications you can and can't live without.
In fact, I often recommend you install Firefox, OpenOffice.org, and other "Open Source" on Windows first.
That way, if and when you decide to move to Linux, you are already running the applications -- with all your data in their open formats -- and it really makes it much easier.
But there will probably never be a day, at least not in the next 5 years, where you can just go to the superstore or any OEM and get a 100% Linux compatible computer.
Hell, trying to buy a fully Windows XP (let alone Vista) compatible computer isn't really 100% either -- but you get the Windows version that comes with it.

Microsoft literally makes it hell for OEMs to sell Linux pre-installed (don't get me started on what they did to Dell in 2000 when Intel promised 100,000 PC sales to Dell for the semiconductor industry -- $5K/unit configured engineering desktops),
so the overwhelming majority do not bother, except for maybe 1 or 2 "special lines" that are not so commodity-priced.
Linux is best when it comes pre-installed, just like Windows.

 

[Member2019]

XP (and Server 2003) is NT 5.1, Vista (and "Longhorn" Server) is NT 6.0 ...

So is this gonna replace XP?

Yes.
Windows XP (and 2003 Server) is NT version 5.1.
Windows Vista (and "Longhorn" Server) is NT version 6.0.

NT is the kernel -- NT publicly stands for "New Technology."
In reality, not-so-publicly, WNT (Windows NT) was the next letter after each for VMS.
NT (including 64-bit) was written largely by Digital, who created VMS in 1977 -- almost to the point of Digital suing Microsoft (much like Microsoft threatening to sue Google -- long story).
Most of the other code came almost verbatim, including the core API (with access controls added largely from VMS).
Many OS/2 and VMS developers, including myself, called it "Nice Try."

It's better than DOS -- which MS-DOS 7 IS the kernel at the heart of Windows 95, 98 and Me.
But NT has been so polluted by DOS, that Win32 is nothing like it was supposed to be back in 1992.

Xerox's time was the '70s.
Digital's time was the '80s.
Microsoft's time was the '90s.
Google's time is now.

 

[Member2019]

16-bit PC BIOS v. 32-bit/64-bit Intel EFI ...

all the same to me, about time they put a stable system in the bios, something like the Amiga was, waaay back, no installing hard/software, this 2007, can be done right? but yeah, money ey

Actually, Apple's Core/Core2 systems are based on the Intel 32-bit EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) design.
They do not have a legacy 16-bit PC BIOS.

Intel EFI, 64-bit, was originally designed for Intel IA-64, a RISC design with EPIC -- I won't bore you, but the "pure" design basically failed (and IA-64 has been retrofitted with Digital Alpha technology over the last 2 versions).
But EFI can and is used for IA-32 (x86, 32-bit) and IA-32e (aka EM64T 32-bit or 64-bit) platforms as well, including Core (IA-32) and Core 2 (IA-32e), namely Apple.

EFI is a proprietary firmware implementation, like the original PC BIOS as well.
A few vendors have reverse engineered the PC BIOS (e.g., Mr. BIOS), but it's still not well documented.
AMD has a more open firmware architecture, and has actively supported LinuxBIOS, which is a Linux-based firmware.
Linux is already heavily used in the embedded space, along with Uboot and other, GNU-based (e.g., Linux) solutions.