Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> 
>> The newer Word format is supposedly more open. It's an XML-based 
>> format, IIRC. I dunno what sort of proprietary stuff they've crammed 
>> into it, though.
> 
> How about deliberately defining it in such a way that only Word itself 
> can really "understand" what its content means?
> 
> XML is no magic bullet for instant portability...
> 

Yup. Our company makes lots of XML files that only our company's 
products intend to understand. Same for competitors and other vendors, 
too. Gets real fun when you try to import someone else's XML. Yeah, it 
parses perfectly, but you have no clue what the semantics of the file 
should be.

> Now look at Vista. I'm anticipating the same story all over again. Right 
> now, you'd be insane to use Vista. It's just too flaky, and it's too 
> expensive to construct a machine that's sufficiently high-end to run it 
> even moderately well. Maybe in another 10 years it'll be OK...

And yet, I run Vista (Home Premium, even!) on a rather moderate machine. 
  2.6 P4, 200GB harddrive, and 2.5G ram. It runs rather smoothly, 
actually. I didn't notice any considerable performance drop from WinXP 
to Vista.

Post a reply to this message