[Bush2000]

No, blame anyone who uses anti-competitive tactics such as this.

There's nothing anti-competitive about having your own damned file format. Sheezus. The only ones who think that way are narrow-minded bigots who want to steal other people's work.

In an isolated instance, yes. In a world where everybody else is upgrading and you need to be able to read their documents, no.

Since you argue that OO file conversion is "excellent", there's no need. Because you can always use RTF format for interop.

Excellent, but not foolproof. Only Microsoft knows how to perfectly translate an Office document.

Nobody's conversions are foolproof -- even MS.

When given Word as a hammer, everybody thinks every publishing job is a nail.

And yet, each day, millions of people could really care less.

Again, you use Microsoft-specific abilities to claim Microsoft is superior.

Look, you're not going to find anyone but a handful of bigots on Slashdot who are going to argue that there is a better PIM combination than Outlook and Exchange.

And you can configure Exchange to do POP or IMAP4.

In which case, you lose the PIM capabilities which make Exchange so powerful. No thanks. That's not a solution.

The Windows-based Word won because Microsoft knew all of the APIs for Windows that they hadn't released to third-party developers like WordPerfect, which was why the first WordPerfect for Windows was quite unstable (I remember, I used it).

Here's a challenge: Name a single API that Microsoft was able to leverage that wasn't available to competitors. And then explain how MS was able to kick Apple's ass on the Mac platform without access to the same information that Apple developers had.

By virtue of being the Windows creators, Microsoft also gave itself a head start. Word already had marketshare by the time WordPerfect was able to reverse-engineer the APIs and put out a decent version of WordPerfect for Windows.

Reverse-engineer which APIs? Be specific. There was another problem though: Microsoft used many of WordPerfect's reserved keys (which people had memorized to the point of motor memory) as reserved keys for Windows. Not good.

Imagine my surprise to learn that WordPerfect owns keys on the keyboard. Whodathunk it? /SARCASM

[antiRepublicrat]

There's nothing anti-competitive about having your own damned file format. Sheezus.

No there isn't. But there is when you use a cryptic, closed format to lock others out of the market.

Because you can always use RTF format for interop.

Ah yes, that format mentioned in the Novell suit as always changing to fit what Microsoft needs (of course, it's their format). Anyone else has to play catch-up. BTW, RTF sucks.

Nobody's conversions are foolproof -- even MS.

Let me put it this way: If MS were to tell people their "XML" file format, then conversions would be a lot better.

And yet, each day, millions of people could really care less.

It's not my problem if they want to lose time and money. Although I'm often the person who has to look at the Word-produced crap.

Look, you're not going to find anyone but a handful of bigots on Slashdot who are going to argue that there is a better PIM combination than Outlook and Exchange.

Novell Evolution (a.k.a. Ximian), an excellent Email/PIM has a connector for Exchange. They had to reverse-engineer the closed RPC format, but they did it.

Name a single API that Microsoft was able to leverage that wasn't available to competitors.

There are hidden APIs Microsoft was forced to publish by the anti-trust settlement. There are still 113 protocols you have to pay Microsoft to use if you want your software be be able to communicate with MS's server products as efficiently as MS's client products do. The latter is a main subject of the EU antitrust suit, with MS leveraging its desktop monopoly to dominate the server market.

And then explain how MS was able to kick Apple's ass on the Mac platform without access to the same information that Apple developers had.

Word was the first really good word processor for the Mac, and Apple's APIs were well-published.

Reverse-engineer which APIs? Be specific.

Read the Novell suit for one. There are lots of examples in there (quotes):

• Microsoft refused to publish the APIs that were used to place items on the Windows Clipboard, although its own developers had the documentation.
• Further, Microsoft misrepresented that Windows 95 would operate as an exclusively "32-bit" ... Novell relied upon Microsoft's representations and developed its applications to run on an entirely 32-bit system. ... Microsoft's own applications developers knew that Windows 95 would not be an entirely 32-bit operating system and, as a consequence, Microsoft was able to release its office productivity applications almost immediately upon the release of Windows 95.
• Microsoft refused to disclose technical specifications that were required toovercome an operating system flaw known as the "64k [limitation] ... Microsoft's API documentation did not disclose sufficient information to cure this limitation. ... delaying the shipment of WordPerfect for Windows ... By contrast, because Microsoft's own applications developers had access to complete specifications for the operating system, comparable features of Microsoft Word consumed only a small percentage of the limited memory, and Microsoft experienced no delay in reaching the market. [I used that Word Perfect, and this perfectly explains what I experienced]

Read the government (US and EU) anti-trust judgements for more information.

Imagine my surprise to learn that WordPerfect owns keys on the keyboard. Whodathunk it? /SARCASM

I didn't mean "not good" as MS did something bad, but "not good" as in it was simply unfortunate for WordPerfect.