• (disco) in reply to anotherusername
    anotherusername:
    ...in fact they did this anyway when they created the XML-based document formats, so there was their prime opportunity to clean up their shit - there's no reason why the new XML-based formats should've also been a .

    What's Microsoft's incentive to clean up their shit?

    You people don't understand the very basic concept of "incentive". The incentive was to make the Office file formats just interoperable enough to avoid fines from the EU, and they accomplished that goal with the minimal level of effort. What would Microsoft have gained from expending more effort?

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat

    "Don't shit where you eat" would be one possible incentive, but obviously they're not too concerned with it.

  • (disco) in reply to anotherusername
    anotherusername:
    "Don't shit where you eat" would be one possible incentive, but obviously they're not too concerned with it.

    Why would they be?

    You still don't get it. Microsoft has one aim, to generate profit for its shareholders. Anything that doesn't contribute to that goal, either directly or indirectly, isn't worth doing.

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat

    Not everyone at Microsoft is in upper management.

  • (disco) in reply to anotherusername

    Ok?

    Good job?

    Did you have a point you were trying to make, or...?

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat
    blakeyrat:
    Did you have a point you were trying to make, or...?

    That the folks responsible for writing the file format handling code in Word/Excel/... might not want to create a bug factory for themselves and their successors? The more corner cases and conditions you pile onto something, the more bugs you get...

  • (disco) in reply to tarunik
    tarunik:
    That the folks responsible for writing the file format handling code in Word/Excel/... might not want to create a bug factory for themselves and their successors?

    Is it one? Word, despite using this horrible (according to geeky nerd geek nerdy-geeks) file format, is far more stable and bug-free than its competitors.

    tarunik:
    The more corner cases and conditions you pile onto something, the more bugs you get...

    As a general rule, I agree. But remember: Word is old, all of those bugs are already solved at this point.

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat
    blakeyrat:
    But remember: Word is old, all of those bugs are already solved at this point.

    In .doc handling, yes -- but in .docx?

    Also, why should Word (or any other word processor) be expected to be pixel-precise in how it formats text, especially considering the limitations of the algorithms it uses to do so?

    (AFAIK, though I'd love to hear that I'm wrong on this, Word and its kin break text line-at-a-time. While this can be done fast, it's nowhere near as good at laying out justified text as the paragraph-at-a-time algorithm that's used in professional typesetting packages.)

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat
    blakeyrat:
    As a general rule, I agree. But remember: Word is old, all of those bugs are already solved at this point.

    No, they've been fixed, regressed, fixed, broken again in a new way...

    The current version of Word has less compatibility with early .doc than Open/Libre Office. Last time I checked, the only Microsoft way you can only get your document out of early Word is to load and resave it in each intervening version, then give up and redo all the formatting anyway.

  • (disco) in reply to lightsoff
    lightsoff:
    Last time I checked, the only Microsoft way you can only get your document out of early Word is to load and resave it in each intervening version, then give up and redo all the formatting anyway.

    Do you have any example of an early Word file that needs anything like that? I've got Word 2013 here and it's opened every .doc file I've tried without any problem.

  • (disco) in reply to lightsoff
    lightsoff:
    The current version of Word has less compatibility with early .doc than Open/Libre Office.

    Assuming that's true (and I'm certain it's not), prove to Microsoft/me that they are likely to lose revenue due to that problem. Would Microsoft make more money if they improved compatibility with ancient .DOC files?

    You people are still not getting my point.

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat
    blakeyrat:
    Assuming that's true (and I'm certain it's not),

    find a document that was created and heavily styled in Word97 , and try to open in it in Word2015.

    I guarantee you it won't end well.

    I have access to half a dozen on our work shared drive, that unfortunately are filled with identifiable and confidential information so i can't share them as is and I have no license nor copy of Word97 to edit them in so redacting such information would necessarily involve opening and saving the file and so would upgrade the document in any case.

  • (disco) in reply to accalia
    accalia:
    find a document that was created and heavily styled in Word97 , and try to open in it in Word2015.

    Why don't you link me to one so you can put your money where your mouth is.

    accalia:
    I have access to half a dozen on our work shared drive, that unfortunately are filled with identifiable and confidential information so i can't share them as is

    Oh how convenient.

  • (disco) in reply to accalia

    I found a document and while I can't tell how old it is, it has

    • a two-column layout
    • embedded figures with captions
    • embedded tables
    • footnotes
    • a proper outline with sections, subsections etc

    I don't know how much more "heavily styled" it can be, but I'd say it'd be pretty sensitive to any breaking changes, as far as Word 97-2003 to Word 2013 goes. Word 2013 had absolutely no problem opening it, and everything looks perfect (aside from some questionable grammar suggestions).

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat
    blakeyrat:
    Why don't you link me to one so you can put your money where your mouth is.

    why don't you install a windows 98 VM from scratch, install Word 97 on it and create such a file yourself then?

    I don't have conveniant access to that environment and i'm not interested in spending the time to create the VM for the one off.

    poke around your companys shared drive. if it's been around since ~2003 or earlier it's boiund to have documents that old on it.

  • (disco) in reply to hungrier

    /me downloads the file, removes the protected view flag, and opens the file in Word2015

    i'm pretty sure that image is not supposed to be where it is...

    [image]

    nor this one: [image]

    that equation looks rather off to me. [image]

  • (disco) in reply to accalia

    Here's what I see in Word 2013:

    [image] Image looks fine in the left column [image] Table looks fine in the right column [image] I don't know the subject matter but that equation looks reasonable.

    It's a hot mess in Read Mode, but in the print layout it looks perfect.

  • (disco) in reply to tarunik
    tarunik:
    Word and its kin break text line-at-a-time

    Don't be silly. Lines have no meaning in text processing

  • (disco) in reply to hungrier

    hmm... do i have any machines here with Office 2013 still on them....?

    because that is not what i see with 2015.

    and "preview mode" is even more messed up than the screenshots i posted!

  • (disco) in reply to accalia

    This could be different in Word 2015, but if you have either Print Layout or Layout->Paper Layout under the View tab, try that.

  • (disco) in reply to accalia
    accalia:
    why don't you install a windows 98 VM from scratch, install Word 97 on it and create such a file yourself then?

    Because the claimee provides the evidence, not the doubtee.

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat

    you claim there is no issue, i doubt it.

    now you are the claimee and therefore providing the evidence is your responsibility.

  • (disco) in reply to accalia

    But it's impossible to prove a negative (which is my position), so I volley it back to you.

    Bam!

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat

    i think you'll find that you stated a position first and had it challenged by multiple people. You would clearly be on the defense in this case and thus by the standards of internet arguments the burden of proof is on you.

  • (disco) in reply to accalia

    Well ok, but, again, I can't prove that literally every single .DOC file opens fine in Word 2015 because I'm not God. So.

    I'll just declare victory and move on.

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat
    blakeyrat:
    I'm not God.

    fair enough. I'll count this a win for me and move on then, shall I?

  • (disco) in reply to accalia

    Nope I said it first. Nyah.

    Here, to make it up I found another thread you can participate in.

  • (disco) in reply to blakeyrat

    no.

    nope.

    nopenopenope.

    i am not touching that with a fifty foot pole.

  • (disco) in reply to hungrier

    So, Word regressed from 2013 to 2015? chuckles loudly

    (P.S. Word 2007 SP3 digests the document just fine, although you have to click on Figure 1 to get it to render for some odd reason.)

Leave a comment on “Mistakes Were Made”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article