Recently I was sent a readme file for an upcoming service pack (for XP or Vista I forget which). It was in one of the new formats which required that I install some SP upgrades for Office 2003.

After I finally downloaded many MB of software to open the smallish file, all I basically found was plain text content that could - SHOULD - have been sent out as a TXT file.

Looks like AJoe is onto something here. Micro$oft is flexing its monopolistic muscles again to "force" the world to accept its non-standard OOXML format as a de facto standard.

The legacy of greed and megalomania left by Bill Gates is alive and well at Micro$oft.

maddog, are you and the boys feeling snookered yet?

Microsoft took what VCSY was able to do from 2001 and built into .Net to show off MSFT capability in XML.

Well, Microsoft certainly looks a whole lot smarter than IBM and Verizon(NOT!).
Because right after the VCSY SiteFlash patent was granted in November 2004, you'll find Microsoft shut up abotu XML. Not a peep out of anything XML in Longhorn or Viridian or any other Microsoft development project in XML to this day. In fact, you can't even find XML mentioned in Microsoft marketspeak beyond simple editing tools and XML parsers and XML storage in their document and database files. No XML middleware. No XML-based ecosystem. Just... "something" that lets them come close but never quite deliver in the XML theory arena.

But IBM and Verizon, them dummies, they just push right along. And worse, IBM uses "Viper" as a codename for the very first project they developed that provided "vendor independent" capabilities in their traiditional proprietary database.

And Verizon makes a big hoorah about NOW Solutions as the first (and as far as we can tell, their ONLY SaaS platform base in their network center) and now we see Verizon advertising "SMART" network centers that seem to use the full promise of the 744 patent...

and you tell us that Microsoft has nothing to worry about as far as infringement but IBM and Verizon are crooks.

Well, that damn VCSY CEO Richard Wade must be plenty stupid to sue Microsoft who has "NOTHING" of VCSY patent claims while completely ignoring IBM and Verizon who show PLENTY of patent claim marketing.

And we haven't even talked about Adobe who uses what looks very much like the 521 patent claims to build AIR and then (arrogance of arrogances) codename it "Apollo". Now, the new reader can be excused for not knowing what Apollo means to a VCSY long of past years, but Apollo Industries used the 521 patent claims to build a distributed smartcard system and later changed from Apollo to "Transtar".

So what? Well, the 521 basis for a smartcard infrastructure would be excellent as a basic platform for an internet equivalent (no doubt the Apollo Smartcard system would be based on internet infrastructure as it's the most ubiquitous network). So, why would we not imagine Adobe snuggling up to VCSY over time (we see McAuley is an Adobe user and that is reasonable given his past as a magazing publisher), learning of the Apollo distributed system and, wonder of wonders, appropriating that sucker for their very own for use in web applications (the client is thus the smartcard many times over if necessary).

So, THAT's the kind of thing VCSY longs have to believe if we're to accept the view that you, tepe, kantuc, seeker, seebeamike and any others of the VCSY skeptics want the reader to accept.

BUT, if we simply accept that business strategies and tactics would allow for agreements and conditions and tactics that would allow VCSy to allow players like IBM and Verizon and Adobe to employ the patent claims to develop their technologies until such time as VCSy demands payment for the developed extents... well, those of us who've watched business lawyers at work are continuously amazed at the plastic nature of "numbers" and "agreements".

You, of course, would be depending on the view that all companies are crooks.

You believe that none can be trusted.

We, of course, would be depending on the view that not all companies are crooks.

We believe some can be trusted.

The best warrior is one who can turn circumstances to his advantage in a fight... and trust is a weapon.

We came across this problem when SP3 came out, unfortunately we have several programs that create word docs in older versions so it's not practical to convert docs to OOXML and who wants to go back and rewrite some of these (if it ain't broke, don't fix it!). However there is a fix....

Here's Microsoft's kb article:

"In Word 2003, there are no trusted locations. You can create an exempt location to override the registry policy settings. To create an exempt location, follow these steps: 1. Exit Word 2003.
2. Click Start, click Run, type regedit in the Open box, and then click OK.
3. Locate and then click to select one of the following registry subkeys:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\Common

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Office\11.0\Common
4. Point to New on the Edit menu, and then click Key.
5. Type OICEExemptions for the name of the key.
6. Point to New on the Edit menu, and then click String Value.
7. Type a string name, and then press ENTER. For example, type ExemptDirectory.
8. Right-click the string name that you typed in step 7, and then click Modify.
9. In the Value data box, type the path of the directory that contains the file, and then click OK.

Note You must create the folder. Any subfolders are not automatically exempted. For any additional folders that you would like to make exempt, repeat steps 6-9.
10. On the File menu, click Exit to exit Registry Editor."

Do not attempt unless you know what you're doing - DI

I am tired that Ms, with the excuse of Piracy and/or security, wants to do its will all of the time (obviously Ms thinks we are sheep).
But I think too that Ms forgot that now there are alternatives (a common error when you are playing chest, to forget the obvious) for this I recommend to people tired of being manipulated to install open office (dually with Ms office) and thus kill the problem (I mean Open office works with all file formats).

To I-Man: My point of view is live and let live (as long as manipulation or threats are not included).
But I have unsolicited advice for you: make your posts short and clear because I am tired of Ms' abuse. But in your crusade, your excessively lengthy and generally incomprehensible posts make me sympathetic towards Ms (and I think that it is not your objective-to make Ms simpatico).

Clearly it is a monopoly muscle flexing strategy. According to :
support.microsoft.com /kb/ 938810 #appliesto
(take the spaces out for the complete link)

"By default, these file formats are blocked because they are less secure. They may pose a risk to you."

What risk are they talking about? You mean infesting my machine so I can't work with the files because I've got a virus? Well isn't that the same effect if not less than updating your office program and not being able to open ANY of your files? None, zero, nada. Not even on other's computers.

I'm with Don Irvine on this one. We've been through this with Access and the "upgrade to newer version" line. Which will then make our files unable to work with the older version of our own or third party software. It isn't only a matter of reading your old memos. Some pieces of software export directly to older formats and that can't be worked around so easily.

One recommendation is to consider Open Office as a serious alternative. OO supporters have constantly anticipated scenarios like this and they have always been brushed away. Now it is happening and will continue to happen more often as money issues press Microsoft. Folks can continue to pay up for MS products with features they don't use or move to cheaper more long term reliable alternatives.

Gerardo Tasistro :"What risk are they talking about?" ...you are correct the whole thing is about
money and manipulation.
Joe: "Maybe stupid isn't so dumb after all."...you are wrong, this is the beginning of the fall of Ms office.

So this is just another M$ trick in an upgrade (sp3) or patch, to install more of its lockinware, this time file formats in M$ Office. No telling what other "improvements" are in SP3 for XP, but I would be willing to bet that DRM was also increased, and M$ spying on the user, if that is even possible.

Its why I have used other products forever, than M$ Office products. In fact, I would not ever use any M$ product, other than Windows. And now I seldom ever see the need to use those.

Joe, you complain about the lockin of the file formats, but what I see, without meaning to be a put down, is that the M$ lockin works with you, and you are a slave to the M$ lockin. These unethical and perhaps illegal tactics by M$ have been going on forever, and will not stop unless the EU comes down hard on them, or the consumers stop buying Office. So while you complain, you are ones of the ones, who validate the stategy that M$ uses, and rightly so, they feel no need to change.

Get some backbone, and just say no to M$, use OpenOffice. Better, take some time download. learn, and try, some of the better linux distro's, and forget using M$ Office and Windows, it will set you free.

get them here; distrowatch.com

Chips likes Mepis, PCLinuxOS, and Mint, for new users.

HD Monitor Causes DRM Issues with Netflix

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/03/2339248
----------------------------------------------------
Since this article is really about lockinware, then DRM would be the ultimate lockinware.

DRM is causing a lot of problems for users of Vi$ta, just more in this link.

M$ has used most of its time and resources to create the lockinware and DRM that Joe Willcox talks about in this article, while ignoring security except for a mostly worthless UAC, that does not do nowhere near enough to Secure windows from Malware.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140861-page,1/article.html

Malware Evolving Too Fast for Antivirus Apps
Bad guys use sophisticated testing to create malware that can evade even the best security programs.
-----------------------------------------------------
This is the real elephant now in the room for Micro$oft. M$ has exploited the malware problem with only basically trying to do the very little bit it can, as a marketing point. And using the Malware problem to further sell Onecare, another bascally defective program, to users.

For those of you that remember the Blaster Worm, read this article in the link. Windows in any form is not a secure OS. And if the article is correct, and other articles like them, the days of using Windows on the Web, maybe very limited.

The Microsoft KB article that Don Irvine quoted is 938810. I read this horror just to be sure; yes, I trusted Don, but I wanted to read it for myself, direct from the horse's ..... well, Microsoft's... well, not their mouth...
Those instructions are meant for a techno-uber-geek. They are not meant for the average person. Even Fedora Core 5, which required me to poke around in various text configuration files to enable telnet, ftp, and ssh, never EVER presented me with such an arcane, complicated, error-prone rat's nest of ugly gobbledygook.
Windows 3.X's WIN.INI and OS/2's config.sys were complex nightmares, but at least they were plain text nightmares. The current Windows Registry is a binary and horribly fragile nightmare, and a very unprofessional piece of design and programming. It should be featured in a textbook on "How Not to Design Software". There may be many geniuses at Microsoft, but none of their intellect is demonstrated by this vital underpinning of the Windows family of operating systems.
By comparison, my thorniest Linux desktop configuration problem was a breeze to solve.

I need some help here. Are we really talking about documents created on Win 3.1 and Win95 systems? And are we really saying that these documents have not been opened (using the many up-converter tools that have been available on subsequent applications) for 10 years? And that these documents will now suddenly need to be opened by everyone who has Office 2003 Sp3 installed?

Just asking.

@roger:
See the link http://blogs.msdn.com/david_leblanc/ for some help. Apparently, Microsoft has apologized, admitting that there is no problem with those file formats, and only with the [garbage Microsoft sludge] code that reads those formats. From that blog:
In Office 2007, we changed the default to disable a number of older file formats where we saw very low usage and a high security risk in our code that loads these formats. From the security standpoint, this is the right thing to do. From the data we have on file opens, very few users open files in these formats, so we decided to modify the default behavior to this safer approach.
It also looks as if they have updated the KB article to provide actual files that people can download so they don't have to wade through the horrifically arcane step-by-geeky-step registry modification. Whee! Microsoft's usability has taken one step out of the Dark Ages toward more modern operating systems like Unix and Linux!

I believe I have the reason that Microsoft has depreciated some older Office formats in Windows XM SP3.

It is aimed at decreasing the value of Windows XP, the largest competitor to their current OS, Windows Vista.

If an XP user does not install SP3 they will eventually not be able to get updates to XP, just like they now need SP2 to get those updates.

Prove I am wrong. :-)

Well that's it,
It feels like i've been swimming against the stream for the last 10 years; supporting and cheerleading microsoft. I can't do it any more - tomorrow (Monday) I'll have to explain why i'll need to spend 3 hours implementing a reg change as a GPO and pushing it out to all workstations after having rolled out SP3 last week.

After that i'm off to look into alternatives. Screw you Microsoft, next time Bill Gates appears in Houston, he might just get another pie in the face - this time from yours truly!

Why would IT organizations be bothered by this? Microsoft released a group policy template for managing the changes coincident with the service pack, so it's easy for IT admins to turn certain specific formats back on and do it on a group basis.

@Larry Seltzer: Because it just SHOULDN"T BE NECESSARY. It's wasted time, fixing a problem that Microsoft can't be bothered to fix properly themselves. Let's just look at this issue from the customer's perspective - what would be best for them? The answer is CLEARLY that not breaking compatibility with legacy file formats is the best solution. What's involved in doing this? Fixing the code that opens them so that there are no security problems with it.

But that's NOT what Microsoft are doing. Instead they are doing something that has NO customer benefits, but does have benefits for Microsoft in enhancing their monopolistic control.

That's why everyone should be bothered by this, not just IT organisations. It's yet more evidence of how Microsoft just doesn't really care about their customers, but is only interested in maximising their profits.