The New Office 2007 File Formats


Recommended Posts

This is stupid - why do Microsoft always feel to need to specifically label everything? Seven different formats of a PowerPoint presentation is ridiculous - what's wrong with having one universal PowerPoint format that is like all of the seven new format's wrapped together, and (just for a change of pace), call it .ppt?

Sshhh! That's going to be the breakthrough addition to Office 2009...

Seriously, how many people really need to know whether or not a word document is 'macro-enabled' before they even open it?

Templates, I get. I can understand differentiating templates from documents. But differentiating documents with slightly different features? I just don't see it. Oh well, I guess that's why I never made it past the first Microsoft interview.

What could suck about this is that you send a .dox resume to an employer and they can't open it, thus not hiring you. I will wait to see if MS confirms this on their site somewhere.

You use .doc, etc formats? I use PDF formats for everything... Which Office 2007 will have the PDF output build in.. YAY, I can't wait... :D

Yeah right, that's why all these third parties are getting aneurisms when they're trying to write their own Office format converters...

Are you suggesting that it's Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that their own proprietary file formats are completely reverse-engineerable to other companies and their software?

Are you suggesting that it's Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that their own proprietary file formats are completely reverse-engineerable to other companies and their software?

No, I'm saying that Microsoft is introducing the XML formats to ease third parties extending Office.

Got something in your eye?

Lol

No really, you act like you're a mod or something :whistle:.

When did he? I never saw that. Take me as an example though... I always try acting like a mod! Mini mod me! :laugh:

I can see this change from MS causing a lot of problems with business to business document emails. The more non tech savy users will use office 2007 and save them in the default file type and send the relevent document to someone in another company who is still using office 2000.

I know it has the backward compatibility, but i just see it causing confusion and annoyance to the adverage below tech savy person.

When i read people on here saying 7 power point file extensions, i was shocked. Then i went and actually looked at the list and realized that, once again, people on here are over-reacting.

There are really 3 power point file types, same as now - standard file, template, slideshow. Most people never used the latter two, and probably will continue to never use them. But they are there for a reason.

The macro-enabled formats are to ease security on systems. How annoying is it when email programs warn you that a simple old Word document could potentially harm your computer if you open what your friend sent you. With the separate extension, the filters would only need to apply to the macro-enabled files. Its a simple way for external programs (all you Microsoft-bashers read carefully: non-Microsoft programs) to tell if the document is "safe." In the end, it'll make transmitting documents to other consumers a much more friendly process.

When they're adding so many formats, why not .odf to meet some common ground with other office suites??

Break out your bubble, Microsoft.

I am all for standards but here is a scenario...imagine MS using ODF as standard, now if Microsoft wants to add a feature, they can't unless whatever committee handling ODF approves it...and you know how fast they work :whistle: so if MS puts the "propreitory extension" and people blame them for destroying the standard!

so its better to have your own thing which you can augment, improve or do whatever.

When apple adds a new extension to HTML (canvas... I might be wrong on this), people applaud it and adapt it...but when MS does similar, they take out their swords and start choppin ! :laugh:

so screw ODF :rofl:

I am all for standards but here is a scenario...imagine MS using ODF as standard, now if Microsoft wants to add a feature, they can't unless whatever committee handling ODF approves it...and you know how fast they work :whistle: so if MS puts the "propreitory extension" and people blame them for destroying the standard!

so its better to have your own thing which you can augment, improve or do whatever.

When apple adds a new extension to HTML (canvas... I might be wrong on this), people applaud it and adapt it...but when MS does similar, they take out their swords and start choppin ! :laugh:

so screw ODF :rofl:

:rolleyes:

Many people complained about the canvas extension as well.

They should've just used SVG.

There's nothing wrong with standards. It's not like there's that much left to add to word processors, or is there?

When they're adding so many formats, why not .odf to meet some common ground with other office suites??

Break out your bubble, Microsoft.

It's not so many formats, it's just many extensions.

Word has a single format but multiple extensions, like document with and without macros, template with or without macros (template is a full blown document). It decides handling based on the extension. Is the fourth character an X, it'll plain out ignore any macros, is it an M, it won't but warn.

In Powerpoint, apart from the add-in format, they're yet again all the same format different extensions, telling the application how to proceed after opening the file.

Excel ditto, except they're also supporting a new binary format for large datasets, since the sheet's now 16000 columns and 2 million rows.

I like the way everyone flies off the handle without actually finding out about a subject.

This was originally announced last summer and the intention is to make it 3rd party developers lives so much easier with the new, open XML file format. The XML is zipped in order (the XML is first) with the file assets so that even if your file becomes corrupt you can still recover the xml and thus save yourself a massive headache!! Just because you don't have problems with something doesn?t mean it's perfect!!

Oh and on the note of backwards compatibility the original (and I think still) plan was to release updates for Office 2003/Office XP to add the file format. So... I?m not sure why everyone is having a hissy fi;) ;)

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=73329 (this is the original interview from last year)

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=159231 (Not watch this one yet, only just found it)

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=174061 (or this one!)

http://openxmldeveloper.org/

I like the way everyone flies off the handle without actually finding out about a subject.

This was originally announced last summer and the intention is to make it 3rd party developers lives so much easier with the new, open XML file format. The XML is zipped in order (the XML is first) with the file assets so that even if your file becomes corrupt you can still recover the xml and thus save yourself a massive headache!! Just because you don't have problems with something doesn?t mean it's perfect!!

Oh and on the note of backwards compatibility the original (and I think still) plan was to release updates for Office 2003/Office XP to add the file format. So... I?m not sure why everyone is having a hissy fi;) ;)

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=73329 (this is the original interview from last year)

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=159231 (Not watch this one yet, only just found it)

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=174061 (or this one!)

http://openxmldeveloper.org/

well said. People should have a read into the subject before commenting about it. The new file format is made such that it uses XML, and people who don't have word can still read the file. Word documents can now be created in real-time (from client request) by servers to contain whatever information asked. It makes the extension much more useful, and it's a great way to promote more use of office.

yeah but I doubt the opisite will be possible :/

its possible, i can open office 07 files in 03 and save them too

Most professors require the .doc format, so they're screwing a lot of college kids.

MS will release free upgrade for Office 2003, to open new file formats.

and Office 2007 can save doc files too.

so how are they screwing college kids?

its possible, i can open office 07 files in 03 and save them too

MS will release free upgrade for Office 2003, to open new file formats.

and Office 2007 can save doc files too.

so how are they screwing college kids?

They're screwing them for forcing those people to use an expensive office suite.

I originally thought this was going to be a mess, but since the common formats are backward-compatible, this shouldn't be too bad. Hopefully the current beta uses the final format.

They're screwing them for forcing those people to use an expensive office suite.

Yes... because there aren't any cheap or free alternatives that support the DOC format... :rolleyes:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. They are seeking a better life too. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!