• 7 Reasons to Avoid Windows 7 (and gparent vs Dr Egg)
    393 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gparent;17131921]What you have now is a value that breaks your entire spreadsheet once you save. If you think that's better than having a fully working spreadsheet that every other suite reads and writes properly, you're out of your mind.[/QUOTE] You missed my point. [QUOTE]No, it isn't compliant. See one of the first links I posted about ODF breaking. Also OOXML is (theorically) an open standard, so it surely wasn't the main idea to add a second one.[/QUOTE] It is compliant. That very article misquotes an incredibly badly worded bit of the standard, and MS is compliant with what the standard says. And OOXML standardness is being challenged/boycotted/whatever so I imagine that played a part in adding ODF. [QUOTE]Stop calling it an extension. It's not. It's as much of an extension than MS' broken version of formulas is an extension. The rest of your paragraph just agrees with me, so I'm not sure why that was written. Anyway.[/QUOTE] I never said the MS way was not an extension, and I was arguing the rewriting code bit, hence that line. [QUOTE]Sure, it's different in the sense that other spreadsheet software actually works properly. Deviation from the formula interpretation? That's exactly what they did. They deviated from the common agreement, and came up with a non-compliant and completely useless implementation. Props to them.[/QUOTE] That isn't what I said. Deviation as in you can't just convert the words of a language into another language and expect it to work without touching grammar/other differences. The "lost in translation" bit is the deviation I was talking about, and in big spreadsheets this can obviously throw everything out. It's still compliant and [QUOTE]Once again, you can't counter the fact that the whole point of adding ODF to MS Excel is interoperability, and right now there is none. That makes it useless and broken.[/QUOTE] Or maybe the whole point was to please the people who wanted to tick the "open formats?" box on their checklist and to actually support open standards?. And how is there none when the documents still open? It's not preserved in it's original form but it does open.
[QUOTE=Craptasket;17097920]Fucking biased article, OP[/QUOTE] No shit
ITT: [img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=1510&dateline=1248700716[/img][img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/pong.gif[/img][img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=81232&dateline=1249902097[/img]
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17146688]You missed my point.[/QUOTE] Maybe, but I'm still right. Breaking the spreadsheet by saving cached values is retarded. [QUOTE=Dr Egg;17146688]It is compliant. That very article misquotes an incredibly badly worded bit of the standard, and MS is compliant with what the standard says.[/QUOTE] It doesn't misquote it. It quotes it from the standard text. I suggest [url=http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-odf.html]you read this again.[/url] It is very obvious that they aren't compliant.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17146688]That isn't what I said. Deviation as in you can't just convert the words of a language into another language and expect it to work without touching grammar/other differences. The "lost in translation" bit is the deviation I was talking about, and in big spreadsheets this can obviously throw everything out. It's still compliant and [/QUOTE]I have no clue what you're trying to say.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17146688]Or maybe the whole point was to please the people who wanted to tick the "open formats?" box on their checklist and to actually support open standards?. And how is there none when the documents still open? It's not preserved in it's original form but it does open.[/QUOTE]That makes no sense at all. The only thing you care about when working on a spreadsheet is the fact that it opens? When it completely breaks once you save it, that's okay? That's not interoperability, you're wrong.
[QUOTE=gparent;17153278]Maybe, but I'm still right. Breaking the spreadsheet by saving cached values is retarded.[/QUOTE] Not for the reasons MS gave. [quote]It doesn't misquote it. It quotes it from the standard text. I suggest [url=http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-odf.html]you read this again.[/url] It is very obvious that they aren't compliant.[/quote] Again, Rob Weir misquotes it. The actual standard says this: [quote]Formula Formulas allow calculations to be performed within table cells. Every formula should begin with a namespace prefix specifying the syntax and semantics used within the formula. Typically, the formula itself begins with an equal (=) sign and can include the following components: * Numbers. * Text. * Named ranges. * Operators. * Logical operators. * Function calls. * Addresses of cells that contain numbers. The addresses can be relative or absolute, see section 8.3.1. Addresses in formulas start with a “[“ and end with a “]”. See sections 8.3.1 and 8.3.1 for information about how to address a cell or cell range.[/quote] That whole list beings with "Typically" and includes the further referenced section 8.3.1. It can be read either to mean that typically that the formula begins with an equals and the rest is absolute, or that the whole thing is typically that, but it was left out of that article, and it does show how MS are actually compliant and how broken the standard is. [quote]I have no clue what you're trying to say.[/quote] Unless you know the syntax of the formulae system 100% it is pointless to try implement it considering how inportant they can be. [QUOTE]That makes no sense at all. The only thing you care about when working on a spreadsheet is the fact that it opens? When it completely breaks once you save it, that's okay? That's not interoperability, you're wrong.[/QUOTE] Again, that isnt what I said. And that isn't even what happens so you are wrong there anyway.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17158635]Not for the reasons MS gave.[/QUOTE] The reasons MS gave are completely stupid. They could've either had a working spreadsheet, or one that is readable but stops working once you save. They chose the former. That's wrong, no matter how biased you look at it.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17158635]Again, Rob Weir misquotes it. The actual standard says this:[/QUOTE]Thanks for proving yourself wrong. I suggest you read the last bullet point carefully. The cell typically contains addresses, and [i]if it does[/i], it must begin with [ and end by ]. They aren't compliant.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17158635]Unless you know the syntax of the formulae system 100% it is pointless to try implement it considering how inportant they can be.[/quote]So are you suggesting that no one implements formulas at all? Because no one knows the syntax. It's just that the smart programmers implemented it all the same way, while MS fucked up as usual.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17158635]Again, that isnt what I said. And that isn't even what happens so you are wrong there anyway.[/QUOTE]No, I'm right. It is what happens. It's even what MS said happens.
[QUOTE=gparent;17160219]The reasons MS gave are completely stupid. They could've either had a working spreadsheet, or one that is readable but stops working once you save. They chose the former. That's wrong, no matter how biased you look at it.[/QUOTE] I assume you mean the latter option? If so then again, they couldn't have had it working. [QUOTE]Thanks for proving yourself wrong. I suggest you read the last bullet point carefully. The cell typically contains addresses, and [i]if it does[/i], it must begin with [ and end by ]. They aren't compliant.[/QUOTE] You are reading it one way, whereas MS read it another. I said it was very badly worded and it can work both ways. The end result is that they are compliant. [QUOTE]So are you suggesting that no one implements formulas at all? Because no one knows the syntax. It's just that the smart programmers implemented it all the same way, while MS fucked up as usual.[/QUOTE] I'm saying unless you are able to know 100% of it it is risky and unless you really need to you shouldn't implement it. [QUOTE]No, I'm right. It is what happens. It's even what MS said happens.[/QUOTE] No. The formulas are stripped as it is opened, not when you save it again. And if the file itself opens then that is a level of interoperability.
i really like this argument taking up the whole thread.
Hm, I use Windows 7, and it's just fine. If you don't like it, don't use it, why get all bitchy about it?
What I don't get is, I'm on vista, no compatibility issues whatsoever, but I hear all these guys on XP like "Vista is really new and incompatible so I'LL JUST WAIT UNTIL W7 WHICH WILL BE EVEN MORE INCOMPATIBLE WITH OLD SHIT."
[QUOTE=Kondor;17174433]What I don't get is, I'm on vista, no compatibility issues whatsoever, but I hear all these guys on XP like "Vista is really new and incompatible so I'LL JUST WAIT UNTIL W7 WHICH WILL BE EVEN MORE INCOMPATIBLE WITH OLD SHIT."[/QUOTE] Well "these guys" are ignorant idiots. Don't listen to them.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17168042]I assume you mean the latter option? If so then again, they couldn't have had it working.[/QUOTE]Yes, they could have. How do you think the 6 other office suites got it working? Black magic?[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17168042]You are reading it one way, whereas MS read it another. I said it was very badly worded and it can work both ways. The end result is that they are compliant.[/QUOTE]No, the end result is that they don't know how to read. It's very obvious if you've read any other kind of standard text before (as I do regularly). A formula cell MAY contain *lists of things*. If it contains *address*, then it has to start with [ and end with ].[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17168042]I'm saying unless you are able to know 100% of it it is risky and unless you really need to you shouldn't implement it.[/QUOTE]They do know 100% of it. OpenOffice.org is F/OSS if they need help. (They can't use the code, but they can use the documentation/code comments.)[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17168042]No. The formulas are stripped as it is opened, not when you save it again. And if the file itself opens then that is a level of interoperability.[/QUOTE] No, if you modify a value in the spreadsheet, and save, that value is saved, not the original formula. So it's read-only interoperability - AKA nothing worth mentioning. Might as well send a PDF. Would that be interoperability?[QUOTE=BananasGoMoo;17168184]i really like this argument taking up the whole thread.[/QUOTE]Well I'm starting to make myself clear enough to finish every point one by one... it's only a matter of time.
[QUOTE=gparent;17175877]Yes, they could have. How do you think the 6 other office suites got it working? Black magic?.[/QUOTE] By reading code? [QUOTE]No, the end result is that they don't know how to read. It's very obvious if you've read any other kind of standard text before (as I do regularly). A formula cell MAY contain *lists of things*. If it contains *address*, then it has to start with [ and end with ].They do know 100% of it. [/QUOTE] But it is still contained within that "Typical". It can go either way. [QUOTE]OpenOffice.org is F/OSS if they need help. (They can't use the code, but they can use the documentation/code comments.)[/QUOTE] Not really. MS isn't too happy to be shown using open things at all before, so why would it change now if they don't have to? [QUOTE]No, if you modify a value in the spreadsheet, and save, that value is saved, not the original formula. So it's read-only interoperability - AKA nothing worth mentioning. Might as well send a PDF. Would that be interoperability?[/QUOTE] Which spreadsheet? If you create one in MS Office and open it in OOo, you get msoxl=blahblah, and if you create a spreadsheet on OOo Calc and open it in Excel, you get the last value when it is opened. If you create a spreasheet and open it in the same program it works fine. And it is a start so it is worth mentioning. And yeah using PDF would be interoperability. Are they not both working with the one format? [QUOTE]Well I'm starting to make myself clear enough to finish every point one by one... it's only a matter of time.[/QUOTE] lol yah rite. Also who the crap keep rating you dumb and not me?
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17177406]By reading code?[/QUOTE]Pretty much.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17177406]But it is still contained within that "Typical". It can go either way.[/QUOTE]Of course it is, because all of the bullet points are contained within that typical. But each individual bullet point has specific requirements. It's rather clear.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17177406]Not really. MS isn't too happy to be shown using open things at all before, so why would it change now if they don't have to?[/QUOTE]Well, they have to if they don't want to look like retards and actually do a decent job. But it's too late now.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17177406]Which spreadsheet? If you create one in MS Office and open it in OOo, you get msoxl=blahblah, and if you create a spreadsheet on OOo Calc and open it in Excel, you get the last value when it is opened. If you create a spreasheet and open it in the same program it works fine. And it is a start so it is worth mentioning. And yeah using PDF would be interoperability. Are they not both working with the one format?[/QUOTE]Sorry to break it to you, but that's not interoperability. If it doesn't allow two people with different office suites to work on the same spreadsheets without completely breaking it in the process, then it doesn't cut it. Right now, if the Excel guy modifies a cached value, the OOo guy is fucked. That is *not* being interoperable.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17177406]lol yah rite. Also who the crap keep rating you dumb and not me?[/QUOTE] Who knows. I don't really care :P
[QUOTE=gparent;17185956]Of course it is, because all of the bullet points are contained within that typical. But each individual bullet point has specific requirements. It's rather clear.[/QUOTE] Nah I still think it can go either way (and so do others, so it isn't just MS playing dumb). At any rate the standard should have been worded better. Indeed, I read the word "typical" has been removed from the drafting of ODF 1.2 to avoid this sort of confusion [QUOTE]Well, they have to if they don't want to look like retards and actually do a decent job. But it's too late now.[/QUOTE] They aren't being retards. They complied with the standard, and MS(and others) has shown that often interopping between other office suits with ODF can fall apart. I'd say by sticking to what they always said they would do, and not attempting to work with a standard they don't know is sensible enough and preferrable to potentially huge discrepencies in formula calculations. Considering Excel is used by home and "power" users I'd rather have the critical spreadsheet users know things are not working rather than have things be lost/muddled in translation just to appeal to home users. [QUOTE]Sorry to break it to you, but that's not interoperability. If it doesn't allow two people with different office suites to work on the same spreadsheets without completely breaking it in the process, then it doesn't cut it. Right now, if the Excel guy modifies a cached value, the OOo guy is fucked. That is *not* being interoperable.[/QUOTE] It is but. It isn't interoperability in the fullest sense, but it is there for sure. Just because it isn't perfect in either suite doesn't mean it should be disregarded. And for the OOo and Excel case, it's just two sides of the same coin. Excel to OOo means the raw incompatible formula is showing, OOo to Excel gives you the last result instead. [QUOTE]Who knows. I don't really care :P[/QUOTE] Well I mean they could atleast be equal with their boxes >:(
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17201245]Nah I still think it can go either way (and so do others, so it isn't just MS playing dumb). At any rate the standard should have been worded better. Indeed, I read the word "typical" has been removed from the drafting of ODF 1.2 to avoid this sort of confusion[/QUOTE] That's most likely because the formulas are actually defined now, so you don't get a choice. [QUOTE=Dr Egg;17201245]They aren't being retards. They complied with the standard, and MS(and others) has shown that often interopping between other office suits with ODF can fall apart. I'd say by sticking to what they always said they would do, and not attempting to work with a standard they don't know is sensible enough and preferrable to potentially huge discrepencies in formula calculations. Considering Excel is used by home and "power" users I'd rather have the critical spreadsheet users know things are not working rather than have things be lost/muddled in translation just to appeal to home users.[/QUOTE] I'd rather have them not implement something that can destroy your spreadsheet while not even being compliant. Maybe I'm too logical. Who knows. [QUOTE=Dr Egg;17201245]It is but. It isn't interoperability in the fullest sense, but it is there for sure. Just because it isn't perfect in either suite doesn't mean it should be disregarded. And for the OOo and Excel case, it's just two sides of the same coin. Excel to OOo means the raw incompatible formula is showing, OOo to Excel gives you the last result instead.[/QUOTE] Sorry to break it to you again, but "Read-only is fine, write-destroys it" is NOT interoperability in any sense of the word, period. You have no clue what the word means if you think that is the case.
[QUOTE=massaki;16835718]I'm not bothered about Windows 7 anyway, I tried it and it just seems alot like another service pack update for vista with a new shell theme placed on top. May as well just stick with Vista.[/QUOTE] It's got a lot of "under the hood improvements" as far as speed and reliability go. You should look into that.
dont pay $100 for a new windows pay $1.30 for a new bag of lemons!
[QUOTE=gparent;17202196]That's most likely because the formulas are actually defined now, so you don't get a choice.[/quote] Yeah but it has been removed from the entire spec now. [quote]I'd rather have them not implement something that can destroy your spreadsheet while not even being compliant. Maybe I'm too logical. Who knows.[/quote] Or they could have tried to work with the other suites and still have possibly destroyed it but you won't know what will cause it. It's the safer option. [quote]Sorry to break it to you again, but "Read-only is fine, write-destroys it" is NOT interoperability in any sense of the word, period. You have no clue what the word means if you think that is the case.[/QUOTE] [quote=wikipeeja]The IEEE defines interoperability as: the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged[/quote] Since Excel and Calc can open each others ODS files (albeit without 100% compatiblity) I'd say they are interoperable. Just because it isn't fully there is no reason to disregard what there is.
Seriously. A fuck load of people were complaining about Vista. And Microsoft is hard at work with the OS that will fix it all. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!
[QUOTE=Faceounch;17219705]Or they could have tried to work with the other suites and still have possibly destroyed it but you won't know what will cause it. It's the safer option.[/QUOTE] You won't know what will cause it with either options, so that's irrelevant. [QUOTE=Faceounch;17219705]Since Excel and Calc can open each others ODS files (albeit without 100% compatiblity) I'd say they are interoperable. Just because it isn't fully there is no reason to disregard what there is.[/QUOTE] By that definition, writing "BURGERS BURGERS BURGERS" in every formula field would be interoperability just because OOo Calc could read it.
This is a from an article the macfag wrote praising windows 7 [QUOTE] Piracy Yarr! We know there are plenty of you out there downloading pirated digital booty, especially in Windows land. But it’s never been convenient to be a pirate compared with being a paying customer. For example, if you’re a legitimate buyer purchasing movies off iTunes, you can easily stream your media to your legitimately purchased Apple TV. If you’re a pirate, you’d have to go through roundabout programs and hardware to re-create the experience. Windows 7 is an OS practically made for pirates. Want to display your movies, photos or music on your TV? Bam! Windows Media Player will do that out of the box if you have a Wi-Fi enabled TV, or an Xbox. No extra programs to install: Windows Media Player seamlessly communicates with your Wi-Fi device to display your illegal content in all its glory on your fancy HD TV. And sharing media is easy, too. Want to download all of your brother’s music? Bam! HomeGroup, an easy networking feature included in Windows 7, will make that super easy between computers running the OS. Immediately upon plugging in to your network with Ethernet or Wi-Fi, HomeGroup will ask if you wish to join the group on the network, allowing you to set up easy file sharing in minutes. [/QUOTE] wat
[QUOTE=gparent;17220828]You won't know what will cause it with either options, so that's irrelevant.[/QUOTE] But as MS say, it's better to expect and know it to be broken than to have something possibly be off slightly and breaking everything else. [quote]By that definition, writing "BURGERS BURGERS BURGERS" in every formula field would be interoperability just because OOo Calc could read it.[/QUOTE] Indeed it would.
we all know gparent is a linux zealot and thinks free software is always better. and he thinks that game developers are ignorant for choosing windows to develop on instead of linux.. lets see why... Spend years of time and work on a game... Windows - $$$$ Linux - 0, move along
[QUOTE=efeX;17234994]we all know gparent is a linux zealot and thinks free software is always better. and he thinks that game developers are ignorant for choosing windows to develop on instead of linux.. lets see why... Spend years of time and work on a game... Windows - $$$$ Linux - 0, move along[/QUOTE] I don't think any of this. You're just a bad troll. [QUOTE=NegaEgg;17234805]Indeed it would.[/QUOTE] That's not interoperability at all. Stop plugging your head in the sand.
really now? do i have to dig up a post of you explaining why there is no gaming market on linux? i've already explained why in my previous post.
[QUOTE=efeX;17235925]really now? do i have to dig up a post of you explaining why there is no gaming market on linux? i've already explained why in my previous post.[/QUOTE] I've probably said before that ignoring the Linux market completely is a bad idea because there is money to be made out of it (see World of Goo), but I've never said that developers should ignore Windows and develop only on Linux.
[QUOTE=FHamster;17221305]This is a from an article the macfag wrote praising windows 7 wat[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure WMP was always better than itunes for windows.
[QUOTE=gparent;17235891]That's not interoperability at all. Stop plugging your head in the sand.[/QUOTE] Except it is. It's not perfect (or indeed useful in you example :v:) but it is interoperability.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17244718]Except it is. It's not perfect (or indeed useful in you example :v:) but it is interoperability.[/QUOTE] No, it isn't. Writing bullshit all over a file isn't interoperability at all, even if the program that wrote it can parse that bullshit back into usable data. Interoperability means *multiple* programs can work together, not that one can read useless garbage out of another program's output.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.