Microsoft Unveils Browser-Based Office Apps 126
snydeq writes "Microsoft followed up its Windows Azure unveiling by announcing that it will deliver lightweight versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote through the browser, a la Google Apps. Surprisingly, Office Web applications will run in Firefox and Safari, not just Internet Explorer. Far less shocking: You won't get Office Web apps free and clear as you do Google apps. The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed instances of the next version of Microsoft Office, the same way Outlook Web Access provides access to mail without the fat Outlook client."
Runs on FF/Safair? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Runs on FF/Safair? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Runs on FF/Safair? (Score:4, Insightful)
I kinda doubt Linux will be supported.
> The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed
> instances of the next version of Microsoft Office,
How its then supposed to run on Linux at all?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, it'll also run in Firefox on Linux via moonlight.
The OP says they are extensions to locally installed apps. I don't think M$ will provide linux apps...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Runs on FF/Safair? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we accepting Silverlight as a valid system requirement now?
I don't mean that as an anti-Microsoft question, but I don't want to have to install every company's obscure little proprietary plugins to run my apps and access my data. Flash is bad enough, but I draw the line directly behind Flash and won't go any further. In fact, I'm still hoping to boot Flash to the other side of that line, especially since it crashes my browser on a regular basis, but I still seem to be stuck with it.
But regardless of who's developing it, I'm loath to install another proprietary incompatible Flash clone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm still hoping to boot Flash to the other side of that line, especially since it crashes my browser on a regular basis, but I still seem to be stuck with it.
Install, and lobby in favor of Silverlight then. Silverlight is far more stable/secure/lightweight than flash, and it's 10x easier to develop for. So if it replaces Flash, you're still in the position of having to install a plugin, but at least you'll be done with browser crashes..
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha ok the Microsoft employees are out in force today.
Its untested, Flash has 12 years behind it.
Its not cross platform. Mention Moonlight and I'll hit you. I cannot type 'emerge moonlight' yet ergo its not anywhere near ready.
And I'd trust Microsoft for security if my IQ was 50 and I didnt care that much.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its untested, Flash has 12 years behind it.
In those 12 years Flash has proven to be buggy and insecure. Developing for Flash (ActionScript) has been a joke so far.
Its not cross platform. Mention Moonlight and I'll hit you. I cannot type 'emerge moonlight' yet ergo its not anywhere near ready.
1. Violence is never the answer.
2. Typing 'emerge moonlight' is your own arbitrary test for being cross-platform -- it doesn't really mean anything.
3. With the recent exception of Flash 9, Flash has a long history of leaving Linux users in the lurch.
And I'd trust Microsoft for security if my IQ was 50 and I didnt care that much.
That's just typical groupthink regarding MS. Read this [cnet.com]. I've seen in the past that people aren't very objective when discussing MS's sec
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So your telling me that Moonlight is ready for action, completely stable and on par with Silverlight?
Oh and whats that I see on Slashdot's front page?
*Another* security flaw allowing remote code execution requiring a out of schedule patch release?
With example code floating around?
Groupthink indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
*Another* security flaw allowing remote code execution requiring a out of schedule patch release?
Let's see:
1. The flaw dates back to XP -- so more than 4 years ago.
2. The patch was released before the exploit was available -- that's a win for MS.
3. Now that exploit code is available, MS is alerting users to apply the patch -- that's a win for MS.
Your example proves my point.
The patch! (Score:3, Interesting)
2. The patch was released before the exploit was available -- that's a win for MS.
Bzzt! [technet.com] Wrong!:
We discovered this vulnerability as part of our research into a limited series of targeted malware attacks against Windows XP systems that we discovered about two weeks ago through our ongoing monitoring.
Microsoft developed the patch in response to targeted attacks. Therefore exploit code was in the wild before the patch. You are right about it dating back to XP, and all prior versions of Windows. Someone, somewhere, has been exploiting this remotely exploitable security hole in highly targeted attacks for an indeterminate number of years. Who knows what valuable proprietary data they've got so far? What corporate secrets were leaked? Every time this happens we get some idiot on here bla
Re: (Score:2)
Ok - I admit I got the timeline wrong - but I still see nothing but responsible behavior from MS in dealing with this flaw.
Every time this happens we get some idiot on here blathering about how things are better now.
Easy there dude.. however strongly you feel about it, the links you used were extremely disingenuous. I'll explain why:
Well that wasn't true before, was it? [cnn.com]
Read your own link. It's got quotes from Brian Valentine (not a security expert) at the RSA 2000 conference talking about how MS put a naked Win2k machine on the 'net for 2 weeks, and only 4 denial of service bugs were found and no breaches were made. Also from your
Security experts? (Score:2)
ahem. [schneier.com]
Let's just agree we don't see eye to eye. Time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm right more often. (Score:2)
Look, you were doing a fine job for your boss right up until you started to annoy me. I don't crawl the dark corners of the Internet any more so I don't have time to hunt up a nice exploit for you. I do however have a good reputation here. So here's my first slashdot comment [slashdot.org] with this account, a reply to the story "Yet Another Windows Worm". There have been 1600 of 'em since then and I've been right far more often than I've been wrong. I've posted so much insightful, forward looking, informative informat
Re: (Score:2)
... your rant, your posting history, accusing me of bias and assuming I'm an MS employee ...
I don't care about you, your posting history, or your sense of humor. Way up on this thread somebody said "I'd trust Microsoft for security if my IQ was 50 and I didn't care that much" -- which is plain stupid, and I was replying to that.
You say I'm an MS employee. Not true, and how does it matter anyway -- that would only provide motive -- not negate my argument.
You say I have a pro-MS bias. I say you have an anti-MS bias. See how that works? You're so biased you can't even imagine how a non-MS employe
Re: (Score:2)
It may be an arbitrary test, but it's a very good one. If it's not present in the largest and most complete package repository for Linux, it's probably not relevant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be an arbitrary test, but it's a very good one. If it's not present in the largest and most complete package repository for Linux, it's probably not relevant.
You just called every non-open source piece of code irrelevant.
I realize that might have actually been your intent, but I hope you realize how foolish that sounds.
Re: (Score:1)
1. Given his point, how cross-platform the program was, he's on the mark there.
2. Given that there's plenty of closed source programs (for instance, Skype) that emerge just fine, no, he isn't calling every piece of non-open source software irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Within the Linux world Ubuntu isn't niche:
apt-get install moonlight
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package moonlight
Even if that did work, I have severe doubts about Moonlight working with J. Random Silverlight site. Moonlight is likely to Silverlight what Gnash is to Flash: a 75% percent solution that isn't really practical but allows MS to tick off "Cross Platform" on the feature list and they damn well did it on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
Keep using whatever random criteria you want to come up with.. that doesn't make your argument more valid. You know very well that moonlight is still in incubation..
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think "Can't use most of the sites that employ Silverlight" is a "random criteria" in the least.
Now we're finally on the same page. This is a valid test (as opposed to the emerge etc. BS earlier), and if Moonlight fails the test Silverlight can't be considered cross-platform. But again, it's still in development -- so it's a little early to condemn it. And recall that this was the case for Flash on Linux for the longest time.
It'll sorta work on non-MS and "work best" on MS. SSDD and we've all watched MS do this before.
Only time will tell..
Re: (Score:2)
The developer product to compare silverlight with is NOT Flash it is Flex. Doing a developer side comparision of silverlight and flash is wrong you should do it between silverlight and flex.
On stablity and security comparision is just plain foolish, flex has been around alot longer is far more proven, the only way you can get silverlight having the better stability is if you compa
Re: (Score:2)
The developer product to compare silverlight with is NOT Flash it is Flex.
Flex is the IDE, Flash is the runtime environment. Visual Studio is the IDE (among other options), and Silverlight is the runtime environment. So the comparison is between Flash and Silverlight.
from a programmers standpoint, flex can be used with alot more languages
Since Silverlight uses a lightweight version of the .net framework, you can use a humongous number of languages to develop Silverlight apps. For a current list, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLI_Languages [wikipedia.org].. It's a huge list - Flex can't even begin to come close to it.
On stablity and security comparision is just plain foolish, flex has been around alot longer is far more proven
???
The IDE is irrelevant from a securit
Re: (Score:2)
The Flex SDK can be downloaded for free and is covered by the open source Mozilla Public License.
Also Silverlight does not support all those languages for version 1 only C#, Javascript (ECMA 3.0), VB, Python and Ruby that has been expanded some for version 2. For most of tho
Re: (Score:2)
Silverlight has a short-standing track record of not being installed at all. I'm betting that particular track record will grow longer over time, on too many computers for it to matter much.
So you're essentially criticizing something you've never even used? Typical..
Sorry. Silverlight is a no-go here.
No apologies necessary - at least not to me. Ignore good technology all you want, it makes no difference to me..
Re: (Score:2)
It's locked down with Microsoft though. At least Flash is now more or less a fully open format.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Plus, Silverlight is much more ActiveX2.0 than it is a flash competitor.
???
There is no connection between the two. ActiveX is a technology you can use to embed controls for your app in other apps or web pages. Silverlight is a browser plugin that implements the WPF/E framework.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drawing lines in the sand is pointless and foolhardy. You -will- cross that line if you want to stay current. All you're doing is denying change.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to draw the line somewhere.
And also, don't give me this "denying change" stuff. Am I supposed to install every new application just because it's new? If someone comes out with a new version of Bonzai Buddy, I should rush to get it into my default image in order to "stay current"? Or what, every single product Microsoft releases is the wave of the future, and if I don't immediately install it, I'm "denying change"? Get real.
No, I'm not going to install every little proprietary browser plugin
MS Gets it right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Positioning it as an extension of office is much more appealing to me than google's broadband-dependent offering. For all the times MS looks completely befuddled by consumer needs, the office team seems to know what it's doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Microsoft knows cloud computing will be a joke. They just see this as an opportunity for large-scale security testing. By tying Office into the web, they'll quickly find most of it's security flaws just like they did with IE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft knows cloud computing will be a joke.
And on the off chance cloud computing just happens to be popular, Microsoft wants to make sure people keep sending me .doc/docx files.
Re:MS Gets it right? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Positioning it as an extension of office is much more appealing to me than google's broadband-dependent offering.
I suppose it looks appealing to someone who was planning on buying another update to the MS Office suite. As someone who wasn't going to buy it, the Google Apps are serving me and my small business very well.
Seth
Re:MS Gets it right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:MS Gets it right? (Score:5, Informative)
a) Google Gears. Get it. Now.
b) It'd also take down your email and numerous other systems, and as a Slashdotter I assume you have a tech-oriented business that rather relies on internet connectivity so you'd be largely screwed regardless of how you manage your documents.
Re: (Score:2)
When my internet connection goes down and a customer calls me for an unrelated issue, I can still access all of my files related to the customer on the intranet.
Re:MS Gets it right? (Score:4, Informative)
Google Gears doesn't allow creating new documents in Google Docs in offline mode. No printing or saving either.
Google Apps Work Offline (Score:2)
Google Apps work without a broadband connection [google.com] too.
Re:MS Gets it right? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
At first, yes, probably. But I'm guessing this is more of a pilot than anything else. If it pans out it's possible they'll offer the web-based subscription model without requiring a license seat.
I hope they implement this outside the browser though, as thin .NET clients.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, the combination of the two apps working together is better than just having the browser-only google offering.
Re: (Score:2)
But still inferior to the combination of OOo and Google Apps.
Re: (Score:2)
The comparison to Outlook Web Access suggest that what they mean is that it will require a special license that is sold alongside with (or, perhaps, on top of) desktop licenses, not a local install; it will probably be no less broadband dependent than Google Apps, it will just require buying one or more desktop Office licenses in order to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I see this as Google doing something stupid and utterly useless to 99% of users, and then Microsoft following them and wasting their time also doing something equally stupid and useless.
But oh well. You must be that 1% who doesn't see online word processing as dumb. For you people, yeah, hooray, Microsoft got something right.
Now it's time for network effects. Send us links to your online word processing so that the rest of us will be forced to use it. Then the marketshare will be 2%. The
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for putting in Active X controls means that it will not fully function with other browers or OS's, phones, or strict security settings. The point of Web Based Office tools is Near Universal access across systems. If I took Firefox for Linux I want to run the app with full functionality. No Active X nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
MS gets it by offering office lite (works) via a web browser when you are offline whist the full version of office is installed and paid for ?
but (Score:5, Funny)
will it have Clippy :p
Re: (Score:1)
Re:but (Score:5, Funny)
but he'll be in Ajax
so he's cool now
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I never have mod points when I need them. +1 funny :-)
Re:but (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like you're trying to modify a post. Would you like help with that?
Re: (Score:2)
For an example, see The Talking Buddy Search Engine [talkingbuddy.com] (Requires IE for the Agent).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh thank god for that. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and every time he waves at you he refreshes his window and your monthly bandwidth cap gets that much closer.
locally installed? (Score:4, Informative)
Except in order to use Outlook Web Access, I don't need to have a "locally installed instance" of Outlook. I understand where they're going with this, but the example that the author used doesn't seem very apt.
Re: (Score:2)
About the only reason I can see using the "cloud" version over my already locally installed copy would be for collaboration.
But if the cloud version is just an extension of the locally installed version, why not give those capabilities to the locally installed version?
I make use of google apps mainly to quickly and easily share "living" documents. Occasionally I use google apps because the device I'm using doesn't have room to install office and rarely needs those types of programs. If I don't need collabor
Re: (Score:2)
If you watched the keynote demo, they were showing two users collaborating. One was using the normal desktop version of Word. The other was using the web version of Word. So the web versions are meant for situations where you don't have Office installed (just like OWA gives you access to your Exchange account when you don't have Outlook). This also means that two users using the desktop version of Word will be able to collaborate in real-time.
According to the press release [microsoft.com], there will be an ad-funded versio
Re:locally installed? (Score:4, Informative)
You need to have a seat (license or CAL as Microsoft calls them) for Exchange for every client that would connect through OWA.
In most situations, clients need three different licenses:
A license for the desktop operating system (i.e., Windows XP).
A client access license (CAL) for the Windows server. This license allows the client to legally connect to the server over the network. If you are using per server licensing, then you need a separate CAL for every Windows server on your network. If you are using per seat licensing, then you only need one CAL.
An Exchange CAL. This is the license that permits the clients to access the Exchange server. At one time, Exchange clients also required a license to use Microsoft Outlook, but today an Outlook license is included with each Exchange CAL.
The rule is that an Exchange CAL is required for any person or device that is accessing Exchange. This includes access through Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Web Access, Outlook Mobile Access, Exchange ActiveSync, or any other messaging interface.
web-friendly gui toolkit? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious whether they are using a common GUI toolkit for their local and web-based versions of these apps.
I'm beginning to like the idea of being able to write a locally-running app and also make it web-based in one swoop.
I guess MS wouldn't be the only ones going this way. Things like GWT and Google Gears and XULrunner make this quite possible. I'm just wondering if MS is uses similar in-house technology.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure how they're doing it with these apps (Haven't looked at WPF) but I know that it was quite possible to write an application in C# and have it converted into a webpage using the ASP.NET AJAX extensions in Visual Studio. It was a bit convoluted to start off with but you could easily write an entire application in C# and then port into a web based solution pretty quickly.
I remember doing this with an incident logging application I made. I started off by just making an installed application and mana
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since everything M$ does with CLR, C# and .NET is a direct re-imagining of what Sun did with Java, then sure it makes sense to have a seamless in-browser/local toolkit.
Sun had that a decade ago with applets vs. applications and Swing. "But," I hear you say " client Java is dead". Agreed, but it's been re-born as JavaFX and the ability to drag applets out of the browser to run locally with Java6u10. Sun are pumping money into reviving a corpse! They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; now it is
Microsoft and Cloud (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is embracing the cloud. I'm worrying about the weather.
I'm worried about the poor cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by that zune-colored cloud, I'd say it's about to start raining diarrhea.
Re: (Score:2)
AZURE sky of death, thank you.
But the most important question... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, will it run under those browsers with the same feature set that it will have under IE? Web access to my company Exchange account technically runs under Firefox. Enough so I can send an email if I really have to. I can assure you that when this is the case I'll be grumbling and cussing the whole time.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to have Office installed locally (Score:2)
Since you have to have Office installed locally I suspect that it involves an ActiveX control with whatever plugins are necessary to wedge it into Safari and Firefox on Windows.
Re: (Score:1)
Rudimentary editing is the wind beneath... um... (Score:2)
You can do full web-based previews and rudimentary editing without Office installed locally.
Gee, I don't have a Microsoft Magic Password on my Mac, so I can't thrill myself with the rudimentary editing!
Guess I'll just have to put up with Office X.
oh god, this is just terrible (Score:1, Insightful)
this sort of uninspired muddled everything in the browser thinking smacks to me of the same sort of cookie cutter approach that brought us to national financial ruin.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this move uninspired? Yes. Does it have anything to do with national financial ruin? (Which we do not, in fact, have. . . turns out there are still one or two people who think we will get back on the right track eventually.) No. Hyperbole--
the reality is.. (Score:1)
both political parties pushed a housing boom because everyone wants to see everyone own a home. I'm Republican and I think Bush and McCain failed not because of the financial crisis per se but because of their failure to accept the credit that goes with this simple point. Bush could have accepted the beating, like, what difference would it make on his ratings, and say, but he didn't. Rolling the dice to benefit the American people is at least something people would be empathetic to.
Washington was well in
OWA is an Exchange feature (Score:4, Informative)
it is part of the Exchange email server, it's not part of the Outlook/Office.
Re: (Score:1)
Licensing will Doom Them (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, it may look pretty, but what's the EULA going to be on this hit of the Microsoft crack pipe? The gradual tightening of their EULA's is another reason the company I work for won't entertain budget spent for new Microsoft licenses.
Have you read the silverlight EULA? Since it's job-related I did, and let me tell you it's not pretty.
We're a small business that has purchased Microsoft site licenses over the years. I gotta wonder how long Microsoft can alienate customers like us before it starts affecting their top and bottom lines.
Browser... (Score:3, Funny)
This just in... (Score:1)
World points and laughs.
web apps are fodder for desktop apps (Score:1)
But Outlook Web Access isn't an extension to the locally installed fat Outlook client -- you can use Web Access without it... maybe I just misunderstood submitter's wording. I don't have time to RTFA because I'm running out the door but I expect Microsoft's cross-browser office plan will require office products
How long... (Score:2)
3 problems with this. (Score:1, Redundant)
1 - you are tied to a subscription service forever
2 - ISP's are once again limiting bandwidth ( and thus limits access to your apps and data )
3 - did i mention you are tied to a subscription service?
Re: (Score:2)
And by licensing software you are effectively tied to a subscription service as well, since the actual owner of the software can revoke your access to it at any time (thus limiting your access to your data if it's stored in proprietary formats only supported by those apps).
Sure, you may technically still have your data, but that will just make it all the more sickening that you can't access it.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you don't have some online registration system to deal with, they can revoke your rights all they want, and you can just thumb your nose at them.
If they try to sue, i bet they lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want to stake your business on that bet?
And commercial software is increasingly getting online registration schemes...
Re: (Score:2)
People have bee taking that bet for decades.
When they buy a box of software that doesn't say 'limited time only' they can reasonably and legally expect it to be around ( as purchased ) for as long as they want it to be.
Changing a boxed license after the fact to remove use rights would be an easy lose for the software company.
Now, if its a lease, then sure the rules can change, but lots do that too. Anyone that gets a MOLP from Microsoft is betting the company on it..
StarOffice (Score:3, Insightful)
So, basically the same idea we had at Sun years ago (about 10!) with StarPortal?!
Plus ca change.
D.
So.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been using OO.org in conjunction with the ZOHO/Google Apps plugin to make Google Apps and ZOHO Office an extension to OO.org. ...and even cooler, the ZOHO developer API allows me to use ZOHO as an extension of my other web apps. So, what are the advantages of using this with MS Office?
In my quest for cross-platform capabilities, I have been using apps that generally work this way. Most of my word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, PDF (Zoho reader), documents are accessible to me in quite a few ways.
1. OO.org
2. ZOHO Office
3. Google Apps
4. The eyeOS desktop installed on my own web server.
What I would like to see now is the ability to sync them all without OO.org and use one OpenID with all of the services.
Ah, yes... more maneuvering toward subscriptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we go again: another attempt to maneuver people toward software subscriptions and changing the perception of software as a tool to an image of software as content... for which people are already accustomed - habituated, in traditional Pavlovian fashion - to forking over cash every month without really analyzing the big picture. (This is one tactic used by manipulative people to concentrate massive amounts of material wealth... toward themselves and away from everyone else. It's totally Darwinian but not very ethical.)
hmnn (Score:2)
I am thinking, google's office runs in any web browser and device, this thing needs silverlight and apparently even MSOffice, it is basically BS...