rant on pathetic example of Microsoft FUD

[Hewitt Tech]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Rundlett" <greg at freephile.com>
To: "discuss" <discuss at gnhlug.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:07 AM
Subject: rant on pathetic example of Microsoft FUD


> I was developing a CD-ROM product which contains multiple Microsoft
> PowerPointless (tm) presentations.  The CD would launch an html Table of
> Contents page using auto-run.  To make the TOC page layout the same as
> the .ppt files, I simply created a slide in PowerPoint with appropriate
> links to the other CD materials, and then exported it as an HTML file.
>
> Microsoft PowerPoint's idea of HTML is not anything you would recognize
> surfing the web and 'viewing source'.  Of course, this is not news to
> anyone who has ever seen the cruft that Microsoft Word spits out as
> HTML.  These apps speak their own strange dialect of an otherwise
> perfectly standardized and specified language.  This strange tongue
> seems to have been originated by a multi-billionaire cult leader from
> Redmond, WA.  His followers have unwittingly or through no intelligence
> of their own spread this Word to the far reaches of the planet.
>
> I was ready to sic tidy on it, but figured if my browser can ignore[1]
> all this crud, then I will not bother.  However, I then discovered their
> fiendish plot.  Not only do they create 10x the amount of needed code
> just to do the HTML and CSS; they also generate a crateful of
> JavaScript, including a browser-detection routine that basically says:
>
>     "You're not using Microsoft Internet Explorer.  This page may
>     contain features unsupported by your browser.  Do you wish to
continue?"
>
> Now they've turned a simple HTML page with a table into something that
> sounds potentially dangerous.  (I had better go get that Internet
> Explorer v. 4.01 so I don't have to worry about these kind of problems.)
>
> Actually, the Microsoft process for converting a simple PowerPoint slide
> to HTML is even worse.  The TOC page that I wanted to produce
> (README.html) actually contains no content in any way related to the
> original document.  It's sole purpose in life is to be the gatekeeper to
> the true content file (which is an even more bloated and twisted variety
> of HTML).  That file is stored off in it's own directory, with a bunch
> of other linked files that are apparently needed in MicroHsofTMeaL to
> reproduce a simple table with links.
>
> I call this whole thing pathetic because it is exactly opposite of what
> their customer needs or wants.  It's pathetic because they are causing
> confusion on the part of the user where there should be none at all.
> It's pathetic because they don't bother to create software that gives
> the user/developer greater control and flexibility, and instead go out
> of their way to develop 'features' that are designed to promote their
> business in a way that defeats their customer's goal.
>
> Why don't they create a converter that says:
> Saving to HTML, choose your preferred output format:
>   HTML 4.01
>   XHTML 1
> Preferred image format:
>   jpg
>   png
>
> D'ohhh.  If they did that, then they would have to call it
> www.OpenOffice.org
>
> I figured OpenOffice would do a better job at creating the HTML file.
> Unfortunately, as well as OpenOffice.org handles conversion to and from
> hidden Microsoft proprietary file formats, it was unable to produce an
> acceptable html export, because it left out the hyperlinks altogether,
> and simply created a page-sized graphic.  I'll bet that Microsoft uses a
> completely non-standard format to represent the hyperlinks in
> PowerPoint, making them practically impenetrable for the makers of
> OpenOffice.org.  Or, perhaps this is an area that ooo can improve in.  I
> created a simple ooo impress file containing a single hyperlink, then
> exported that to html, flash, and pdf.  All converters failed to
> preserve the hyperlink.  At least the ooo software didn't scare me into
> thinking that I was about to ruin my computer by doing something
> unsupported.
>

You bring up an interesting observation about Microsoft's application
products. Microsoft seems to specialize in making applications that are
incompatible or difficult to mimic. One product that I found rather
obnoxious is their "Picture It" product. All I needed was a tool to create
picture albums that could be easily setup on a web site. The application
insisted on inserting links to the Microsoft web site which were "no
return". If you inadvertently clicked on one of the "Picture It" links you
found your browser sitting on the Microsoft web site and clicking the back
button wouldn't return you to the picture album. Really annoying and totally
gratuitous.

Another Microsoft application that locks you in (don't they all?) is their
Publisher product. If you create web pages with it, you can forget about
using any other tool to access the source.

-Alex

> -Greg
>
> 1. As specified, non-standard words shall be ignored by speakers of the
> true language.
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss