Discussions

littleguru wrote:

It affected me a lot when doing the internship interviews for Microsoft last year... I'm so used to it and when I don't know exactly the name of something I just start to type it and can select it from there.

Before doing a next interview I'll look more precisely at the classes that might get asked! You know the problem was that I didn't always remember all the methods and properties. I often only browse through the shown methods to see if one would fit my needs. Now I couldn't do that when I only had the whiteboard and nothing else.

ScanIAm wrote:



borosen wrote: This is exactly why they should have been left out of the standard proposal. If it is not supposed to be there, don't put it there. If anobody wants to extend beyond the standard, please do so, but keep the crap out of the standard.

I know it may come as a suprise to you, but there are an awful lot of documents that currently exist in some version of office format.  The naive idea that we'd all join hands and sing kubaya while we mass convert these files to the newer format is rediculous.

By your standards, we would simply not have access to these files at all which would mean that the standard would never be used. 

Then we'd have more people whining about how "MSFT doesn't follow standards" every time Word opened up a file created on a previous version.

Here's a brief, but bitter truth: 

Whatever format MSFT uses IS the standard. 

Hop on the train, or don't, but the opinion of some artificially created standards board doesn't really matter.

ScanIAm wrote:



borosen wrote:  ScanIAm wrote:  Google wrote: for a specification of this size it was not given enough time for review; the undocumented features of OOXML prevents its implementation by other vendors; dependencies on other Microsoft proprietary formats and their technical defects makes it difficult to fully implement; and the overall cost for vendors of implementing multiple standards (hence the lack of OOXML implementations in the marketplace). How long does it need to be reviewed? Why would you want to implement undocumented features and are you unable to create your own undocumented features? What proprietary formats is it dependant on? If it becomes a standard, why would you need to implement other methods? All I'm seeing here is "MSFT did it, so it must suck." Why would you put undocumented features in a standard? I use Microsoft's products all the time, earn a living from doing so, I am not a Microsoft basher, but this OOXML standard proposal seems to be a joke. How any standardization body could vote yes on this, is beyond me.

Undocumented features == Support for earlier office formats == optional features == nonissue if you don't want to support it.

They're undocumented because MSFT doesn't want people having to implement older office formats.  This is because they wish that these formats would be supplanted by OOXML.

If they had included Word95 specs, people would be bitching about having to implement them, so they made them optional and didn't specify them.

How any technically inclined computer monkey could not understand this is beyond me.

ScanIAm wrote:



Google wrote: for a specification of this size it was not given enough time for review; the undocumented features of OOXML prevents its implementation by other vendors; dependencies on other Microsoft proprietary formats and their technical defects makes it difficult to fully implement; and the overall cost for vendors of implementing multiple standards (hence the lack of OOXML implementations in the marketplace).

How long does it need to be reviewed?
Why would you want to implement undocumented features and are you unable to create your own undocumented features?
What proprietary formats is it dependant on?
If it becomes a standard, why would you need to implement other methods?

All I'm seeing here is "MSFT did it, so it must suck."

The only reason for the price difference I am aware of, is that customers are bying it.

This question has been asked before, passing unanswered.
(Well maybe not for MSDN, but for other products)

That is pretty funny.

This is impressive though. (One of the related videos)

Steal?

First WGA and now encourage to steal...


It seems like a good deal though.

Harlequin wrote:



GoddersUK wrote: Change the time/date on your system clock when you copy them?

That will just give all the files the same date. If each file has it's own create datestamp you'd want it to persists per file.

DigitalDud wrote:

This race is looking to be awfully boring.  The Democrats don't stand a chance with these candidates.

World's most powerful supercomputer goes online (fwd)

Windows is running the most powerful super computer :O

Joke aside, it is some impressive numbers, especially if they where successfully organized.

As a comparison, Folding@Home have according to Wikipedia many hundred thousands of partisipants.