.docx

[I-Hate-Hulse]

^^^ You remind me of the guy I used to know who used to who championed Beta over VHS till it died.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by llama64

It is a common occurance. But that doesn't make it a good idea. And yes, I would argue that the people you are referring to aren't using good practices if everything they send out is in an Office format.

A good example of what I mean are the people who send "pictures" wrapped in Word or Powerpoint files. Sure, 80% of the recipients will probably be able to open them properly. But if you save as a PDF instead (or just link the bloody images themselves...), 100% of the recipients will be able to view the documents WITHOUT needing an expensive piece of software. This is more an ignorance/training problem then anything else.

PDF's also aren't a vector for viruses, malware, or any other nefarious pitfall that has compromised Office formats in the past.

PDF is an ISO standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
So no, PDF is not the same thing.

i agree about the images thing. too many times have i had to copy it out of a document paste it into paint and save it as a jpeg. but thats just the way it is.

whats this expensive peice of software they need for doc files? last i checked open office was free and could handle the new and old word formats.

here's the thing. you are arguing that pdf is better because word is proprietary. yet pdf is proprietary as well. you are arguing that pdf is better because you need software to view word files. yet you need software to view pdf's as well. you argue that pdf is better because ms office is expensive even though there are other programs out there like OO that are free. (its kind of like me trying to argue that pdf sucks because acrobat pro is expensive!)

to me, they are both in the same boat. doc files are not some crappy 2nd rate system compared to pdf's awesomeness. to me, they both have strengths and weaknesses. for me, the editability far outweighs the 'looks the same on all computers' factor.

also, i did not know pdf was an iso standard. only took them 15 years and 7 versions to get that approval... they must really be on the ball! with the way MS was able to brute force their XML standard, one has to wonder though how important that designation is.

[MarchHare]

why would you not want an office suite?

On my home computer, I have absolutely zero use for an office suite. A combination of Wordpad and Google Docs does everything I need. So why should I download and install a bloated application like Open Office when I'll never use most of its features?

why someone would argue for reader over OO is beyond me.

You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison. What you're advocating is the equivalent of installing Photoshop so you can view JPEGs.

and yes, i have worked a couple places where acrobat reader wasn't installed by default.

Then the sysadmins at those workplaces sucked. There's absolutely no reason not to include Adobe Reader on every computer.

Office suite = creating/editing documents
Adobe Reader = viewing completed documents

[Bobblehead]

We found Adobe Reader to have become bloated the past few versions so switched to using Foxit Reader(the reader is free, they charge for advanced features) in all the standard installs. We've found it much snappier.

* and note: yes, PDFs have been discovered to have vulnerabilities. No where near as common as Office macro viruses, but they do exist.

[MarchHare]

We found Adobe Reader to have become bloated the past few versions so switched to using Foxit Reader(the reader is free, they charge for advanced features) in all the standard installs. We've found it much snappier.

Yeah, I shouldn't have stated Adobe Reader specifically. However, that doesn't change my point; there's no reason for a PDF reader not to be part of the standard build of most office computers.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

We found Adobe Reader to have become bloated the past few versions so switched to using Foxit Reader(the reader is free, they charge for advanced features) in all the standard installs. We've found it much snappier.

* and note: yes, PDFs have been discovered to have vulnerabilities. No where near as common as Office macro viruses, but they do exist.

The PDF vulnerability was tied to Outlook, part of Office.

Yet again:
I'm saying PDF's are better for overall content delivery. Using Office formats is stupid for that.

I'm not getting into a debate on Office suite software, that's that what I was talking about.

And for the record, OS X supports PDF natively out of the box. It can even print to it. Linux has had this capability for eons as well.
Lo and behold, it's Microsoft dragging their ass because the format isn't owned by them.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by llama64

The PDF vulnerability was tied to Outlook, part of Office.

Yet again:
I'm saying PDF's are better for overall content delivery. Using Office formats is stupid for that.

I'm not getting into a debate on Office suite software, that's that what I was talking about.

And for the record, OS X supports PDF natively out of the box. It can even print to it. Linux has had this capability for eons as well.
Lo and behold, it's Microsoft dragging their ass because the format isn't owned by them.

There have been (and still are) LOTS of pdf Vulns, and no, not all are related to Office (although I agree with almost everything else you have argued)

Here is a purely Apple one from this week, for example: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/34962

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

There have been (and still are) LOTS of pdf Vulns, and no, not all are related to Office (although I agree with almost everything else you have argued)

Here is a purely Apple one from this week, for example: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/34962

True enough, I was just being cheeky.

How often are vulnerabilities tied to the formats themselves rather then the code used to read the format? In the case you pointed out, it's a problem with a core library on OSX that allows for a tampered PDF to execute it's payload.

Office formats used to embed macros directly inside them as part of the format. Do they still do that?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by llama64

True enough, I was just being cheeky.

How often are vulnerabilities tied to the formats themselves rather then the code used to read the format? In the case you pointed out, it's a problem with a core library on OSX that allows for a tampered PDF to execute it's payload.

Office formats used to embed macros directly inside them as part of the format. Do they still do that?

If there is a macro defined. I have my work version of Office set so it won't execute any macros. And yeah, macros have traditionally been a primary vector for Office viruses (*cough*Melissa*cough*).

At home I use Google Docs for most stuff. I have used Open Office in the past but found it a little kludgy.

[Regorium]

http://member.thinkfree.com/member/goLandingPage.action

Allows you to view docx online. I don't think you can edit though.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by llama64

PDF is an ISO standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
So no, PDF is not the same thing.

So is Open XML
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/soft...9287858,00.htm

Also you can download a Word Viewer

http://www.microsoft.com/DownLoads/d...displaylang=en

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by llama64

Lo and behold, it's Microsoft dragging their ass because the format isn't owned by them.

Microsoft can no longer add any sort of functionality to their OS without getting sued by somebody.

Anyhoo, they did try to add PDF functionality to Office 2007, but Adobe whined about it, and so it wasn't added originally.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by llama64

If the intention is for the recipient to edit the document, a decision has already been made on what format to use.

But for EVERYTHING else, sending out a proprietary format is just plain rude and ineffective. I especially hate it when people link Office documents off a website.

No, not everyone has Office, and no we don't want to buy that crap software suite.

EDIT: someone else beat me to the punch pointing out that Office 2007 documents are already standards compliant (Open XML)

[McG]

a couple of things.

you can save as a pdf file inside office. you have to download the plug in for free from Microsoft, unless you go with SP2 which has that automatically.

the whole can't edit pdf files thing is a bit of a red herring...because most users don't know how to lock the document down...and anyone with adobe standard or pro can open and edit the pdf file if it isn't locked down. so word or pdf...if the user doesn't lock it down it doesn't matter.

also....docx, pptx, xlsx and related formatting is extremely useful either using sharepoint or other tools that require the ability to search properly, such as outlook or desktop search tools.

does everyone need all of the functionality of the office suite? of course not. but for home users to bash high end corporate users is ridiculous. most organizations run on the PC platform and many people use alot of the deeper functionalities of the office suite in their day to day jobs. it isn't even that similar to writing a paper for school or sending out a christmas letter for the family. for many people...they would probably be happy with wordpad.

the funny thing about this is that microsoft office keeps getting cheaper and cheaper for students. i think that google docs will gain in popularity for the base functionality as well as the mobility as netbooks and related technologies become more pervasive.

i actually don't get the whole hate for microsoft thing. if you don't like it, don't buy it. buy a mac or use linux or whatever. for those of us who remember working with DOS, i find the complaints about current tools to be ridiculous.

[llama64]

For the record, I wasn't bashing Microsoft, or Office. My complaint is about formats and how and when people use them.

People send out Office formats for distribution ASSUMING everyone can open them. This is the attitude I hate.

The point that people seem to be glossing over is that if you want your end viewer to see exactly the same thing as you do, use a PDF file. That's all I wanted to express in the first place.

McG noted an excellent example. If you want to send out an electronic copy of a Christmas letter to your family and friends, and you want it to be a bit more fancy then what a standard email allows, you aren't going to send it out as an Office format if you have any clue about what you are doing. A PDF is perfect for this scenario. You can't assume everyone has Office, but you can expect nearly everyone will have a PDF viewer.

As always, training is key. If the reciever has no need to be editing the contents of a file, it's probably just easier to send a PDF in the first place.

[dobbles]

on a related note, i received an email yesterday with some forms that a lady would like be converted to our website. one of the files was in word, which i was fine with, but the size was 7 megabytes. i instantly got sad that is was some long complicated form that would take forever to replicate online.

i opened the file; it was only 1 page long. i looked around and noticed our logo in the top left corner. even though it was only an inch or two wide, the person had brought it in at an extremely high resolution that was a couple thousand pixels wide at least. so that was solely responsible for bloating the file from 50kb to 7mb.

just thought that was an appropriate story to go along with the whole 'people use MS products and don't really know what they are doing' theme!

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by llama64

For the record, I wasn't bashing Microsoft, or Office. My complaint is about formats and how and when people use them.

People send out Office formats for distribution ASSUMING everyone can open them. This is the attitude I hate.

The point that people seem to be glossing over is that if you want your end viewer to see exactly the same thing as you do, use a PDF file. That's all I wanted to express in the first place.

McG noted an excellent example. If you want to send out an electronic copy of a Christmas letter to your family and friends, and you want it to be a bit more fancy then what a standard email allows, you aren't going to send it out as an Office format if you have any clue about what you are doing. A PDF is perfect for this scenario. You can't assume everyone has Office, but you can expect nearly everyone will have a PDF viewer.

As always, training is key. If the reciever has no need to be editing the contents of a file, it's probably just easier to send a PDF in the first place.

That's a very presumptuous attitude - up until Office 2007 Service Pack 2, which was just released, most users in corporate land probably don't have a means to create PDF's on their IT supplied workstations. And I don't see many home users with CutePDF or one of the other free/cheap PDF writers.

And everyone on the Windows platform has access to either Wordpad, which can open lots of Word docs, or the freely available Office viewers that one can download from MS.

Really, this just underscores the fact that 98% of all electronic communication should just be done in plain old ASCII text. It's small, easily searchable, and compresses well.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by dobbles

on a related note, i received an email yesterday with some forms that a lady would like be converted to our website. one of the files was in word, which i was fine with, but the size was 7 megabytes. i instantly got sad that is was some long complicated form that would take forever to replicate online.

i opened the file; it was only 1 page long. i looked around and noticed our logo in the top left corner. even though it was only an inch or two wide, the person had brought it in at an extremely high resolution that was a couple thousand pixels wide at least. so that was solely responsible for bloating the file from 50kb to 7mb.

just thought that was an appropriate story to go along with the whole 'people use MS products and don't really know what they are doing' theme!

Perfect example. Except that I never said that people who use MS products don't know what they are doing...

[MarchHare]

Once again, I'll use an example that people defending the use of sending files in MS Office format have conveniently ignored:

Do you send images in Photoshop's .psd format? No, of course you don't. That format is used for editing image files, but when it comes time to distribute the completed work, you'll save it as a JPEG or PNG or whatever. Sending MS Office documents that you don't intend for the recipeient to edit is the exact same thing. If you want to distribute a completed document, send it as a PDF.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by dobbles

just thought that was an appropriate story to go along with the whole 'most people who use computers don't really know what they are doing' theme!

fixed that for you. this is not a ms user problem - its far more widespread than that.