Webware

The technology preview of Office Web Apps allows users to edit Excel spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations and view (but not edit) Word documents.

(Credit: Microsoft)

Microsoft plans on Thursday to start public testing for the first browser-based version of Office, although the technology preview is at least as notable for what it doesn't include as what it does offer.

The limited test of the so-called Office Web Apps includes versions of Word, Excel and PowerPoint, but not the OneNote note-taking application. And while Excel and PowerPoint offer the ability to edit and create documents, the current Web-based version of Word can only be used to view documents, essentially the same capability it already offers as part of its current Office Live Workspace product.

Microsoft said the Web versions of OneNote and Word share "the same editing surface," and that the technology is still being worked on.

"We made the hard decision to turn off editing in the Word Web App at Tech Preview, in order for people to have the best experience at this early stage," Microsoft said.

Microsoft plans to offer the Web Apps preview first to users of Windows Live SkyDrive, giving them 25GB worth of storage.

The Office Web Apps are scheduled to be launched along with Office 2010--the next version of Office, with both browser-based and desktop programs due out in the first half of next year. The Office Web Apps will be made available to consumers as a free, ad-supported part of Windows Live, while businesses will be able to offer them to workers via their own SharePoint servers or through the Microsoft Online subscription service.

Microsoft said it will have editing abilities for Word and a version of OneNote by the time the Office Web Apps launch in final form. The current technology preview will be made available to tens of thousands of users, with a broader beta planned for later this fall. However, Microsoft would not commit to offering editing abilities for Word by the beta release.

Once finished, the browser-based versions will all offer editing, though not all of the capabilities of their desktop counterparts. Excel and OneNote will feature live co-authoring abilities, while all the Office Web Apps will work only while a user is connected to the Internet.

Microsoft also takes a different approach when it comes to sharing documents than do its rivals. While Google Apps lets users share a document directly, Office Web Apps enables sharing at the folder level--meaning that to share a document, a user must save it into a folder on Windows Live SkyDrive and then share that folder.

Forrester analyst Sheri McLeish said that the Office Web Apps do appear to be more complicated than rivals such as Google Docs or Zoho Office.

"Google and Zoho are very easy to get started on today, requiring just a step to register before being able to work on a document or spreadsheet," McLeish said. "Microsoft's Office Web Apps do not seem to match that level of ease to get started."

On the plus side, McLeish noted that Office offers a depth not found in its online rivals.

"Once you are in the Web Apps the experience is very much the same as the desktop suite," McLeish said. "And for enterprises, deployment choices to host the Web Apps themselves on-premise is a big differentiator from Google and Zoho."

As for the current release, Microsoft noted that it is still in pre-beta form and has a number of known issues.

"It's still going to be rough around the edges," said Ural Cebeci, a senior product manager in Microsoft's Office unit.

The Office Web Apps are being certified to work in Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari, and may also work in Google's Chrome--although Microsoft isn't guaranteeing Chrome compatibility.

Microsoft had previously indicated on several occasions that the Safari compatibility meant that users would be able to edit documents on their iPhone, but Cebeci said that iPhone users will only be able to view documents--capability similar to that offered on other smartphones.

There are times when I think open source is an unstoppable force. And then there's OpenGoo.

OpenGoo declares its mission to be to "make the best Web Office. Period." But then it proceeds to undermine every benefit that a true Web office productivity application, like Google Docs, provides to its users. Like the Web, for starters.

That's right. The first thing that struck me when trying to use OpenGoo (aside from its rather unfortunate name, which is yet another reminder that marketing is an essential function, not an afterthought, for open-source projects) was the download page.

Download page?!? I thought this was a Web office productivity suite. Why would I want to download an application?

I never found out. Once I had downloaded and unzipped the file(!?), I was greeted with this:

(Credit: Matt Asay)

I tried finding the application launcher, but couldn't. More pertinently, why should I? It's a Web application, right?

I finally gave up and used the demo, instead. It works fine, though it's nowhere near as polished as Google Docs, and still left me wondering, "Why do I care, as a lay consumer, that this is open source?"

Yes, there is value in having access to source code should OpenGoo go down (particularly as it appears one is meant to install and run OpenGoo inside the enterprise firewall, which sort of defeats the purpose of it being a "Web Office," but...). But would open source make OpenGoo a more resilient service, in the way that some are (wrongly) claiming open source would make Twitter more impervious to denial-of-service attacks?

Of course not.

The OpenGoo site brags that by using OpenGoo, "you are free of vendor lock-in." But I would gladly trade a little lock-in for some ease of use.

There is tremendous value in open source, but the OpenGoo developers have mistaken where it begins and ends. Open source should be invisible to the end users that care about a Web-based office productivity suite. By making it a feature, OpenGoo demonstrates misunderstanding of its audience.

Zoho also uses a lot of open source, but it doesn't sell open source as a feature. This is probably why you've heard of Zoho but, until this article, you likely hadn't heard of OpenGoo.

UPDATE @ 12:12 PT on 8/18/09: My post above was written in some haste, which prevented me from adequately explaining my points. I apologize for the confusion. I understand (and clearly implied) that OpenGoo is not a direct competitor to Google Docs, as it's meant to be run behind the firewall (i.e., it's an on-premises installation, not a cloud application).

But this, as I noted, is its biggest deficiency (well, after the name). It is neither fish (locally installed Microsoft Office) nor fowl (cloud-based Google Docs), and so it's unclear what value, if any, it provides, simply on architecture/installation alone.

No one is going to beat Microsoft Office with a light upgrade in deployment options, least of all OpenGoo, which I continue to find underwhelming in its UI and feature set. Open source is unlikely to improve on this. Given how much OpenOffice has struggled to attract significant development from outside Novell and Sun, in part because the development community isn't interested in rebuilding Microsoft Office (why would it? I doubt many developers have a Microsoft Office "itch" to scratch).

So, OpenGoo isn't Google Docs and doesn't want to be. What does it want to be? The premier Web Office, according to its website. It's not, as I note above and underline emphatically here, because it's light on Web and not innovative in its approach to Office.

I apologize for my hastily written post, but OpenGoo doesn't get any better on further reflection.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Philadelphia-based collaboration tool WizeHive is getting a handful of useful updates today.

The service, which is aimed at helping both groups and individuals manage projects and juggle tasks, is evolving into something designed to replace desktop productivity software with features like an integrated word processor, file previewer, and storage with versioning controls that let users roll back to an older version of any file.

Starting today, WizeHive users can create and collaborate on Zoho documents from within WizeHive, and without having to open a Zoho account. Whatever they save is also stored along with the rest of their files and projects back on WizeHive.

Users can now upload up to 50 files at a time, up to 100 MB a pop.

(Credit: CNET)

Along with the editor, WizeHive users can also store and share larger files on the service, and more of them at a time. The new cap per file is 100 MB, up from 10. The new uploader also lets users upload up to 50 files at a time, up from single file uploads.

Coming next month will be a way to view previews of certain types of files from within WizeHive. Currently you have to download a file, then open it up in a local application--something that really doesn't work if you're on a computer without the proper software installed. This can also be problematic if you're on a limited connection such as cellular data. Storage services like Box.net have been doing this for a while, and it can be a big time saver.

WizeHive continues to be a free service through its "beta" period. After that, users will have to pay $39 a month, along with an extra few dollars for additional storage and users in a group. See also Seattle-based Liquid Planner, which offers fuzzy due dates on tasks.

I'd personally like to offer browser makers my gratitude for realizing that my screen isn't big enough.

I'm one of those people who wants every bit of display real estate I can get. The more I can see of the document I'm writing, the in-box I'm scanning, and the photo I'm editing, the happier and more productive I am.

The maximize button is my friend. Toolbars are my enemies.

So I'm happy to report that browser makers are paying new attention to the issue. It's important to me for reading Web sites, but it's really important to me for the new generation of Web applications. A row of pixels saved once in the browser is returned again with each Web-based application.

Mozilla's ultimate goal is to make the user interface step into the background as much as possible--indeed, the mobile-phone version of Firefox now under development has no visible user interface until it's needed. "Every time a user has to think about how to do something, instead of what we want to do, we as software creators have failed," said Aza Raskin, Mozilla's leader of user interface work.

But it's not simple to redesign the browsers. Users can be confused when interfaces change, some controls are essential, and hiding them can cause problems.

"The challenge to reducing UI (user interface) is in recognition versus recall. People generally use what they see," Raskin said. "How can we provide one-click access to everything possible on the Web without also cluttering the screen? That's a question we are still answering."

Microsoft's case is illuminating. Its Internet Explorer 7 hid the menu bar, though it could be revealed by pressing the Alt key, but IE 8 shows menus by default. (It can be hidden again by default if people choose, and I do.)

Reclaiming real estate
There's been some work in this area for years. For example, hitting the F11 key in Windows puts Firefox into a full-screen mode, hiding title, menu, address, and tab bars. And Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7 hid the menu bar, though it could be revealed by pressing the Alt key; IE 8 shows menus by default again, though it can be hidden again by default if people choose, and I do.

But now the pixel reclamation effort is taking off in earnest. The big statement came in September 2008, when Google revealed its Chrome browser--ironically named because it aims to move the user interface elements, called chrome, as much into the background as possible.

Chrome wiped out the title bar altogether and arrayed its browser tabs in the newly freed space. It also wiped out the menu strip and tucked the options into two drop-down menu buttons to the right of the address bar. Information that would show in a status bar, such as the actual URL of a Web address you're hovering your mouse over, appear in a temporary box that appears on the lower left. When you search a Web page, another small window appears in the upper right. (Chrome looks somewhat different on Mac OS X, which always uses a menu bar at the top of the screen that's detached from the browser Window itself.)

An example of Chrome's latest interface on Windows.

(Credit: Screenshot by Stephen Shankland/CNET)

Chrome on the Mac can't free up the menu bar real estate, so it looks different than on Windows.

(Credit: Screenshot by Josh Lowensohn/CNET)

Missing at launch was a full-screen mode, but Google rapidly filled in that gap. This max-screen ethos is one reason that Chrome, at present at least, is my default browser.

Another change came with Safari 4 from Apple. Like Chrome, it added the two-button menu icons toward the upper right. Unlike Chrome, it sports a traditional menu bar as well, though with the Windows version it can be hidden to free up some real estate.

Safari 4 lets you hide the menu bar--but between the beta and final versions, Apple moved the tabs to the more conservative position immediately above the browser Web page.

(Credit: Screenshot by Stephen Shankland/CNET)

Unfortunately, in my opinion, Apple backed off from another change between the Safari 4 beta and final version. Initially, the browser sported tabs in the title bar, like Chrome, but Apple later moved them into the more conservative position immediately above the Web page.

The next move comes from Mozilla, which leads development of the Firefox browser.

With the dash to release Firefox 3.5 now over, developer attention again focuses on the future. Last week, mock-ups of Firefox 3.7 arrived to trigger discussions of what the final interface should look like. On display were two Chrome-like characteristics: the two menu icons and the missing menu bar.

Shortly afterward came the Firefox 4.0 mock-ups, moving the tabs to the title bar in one option that's even more Chrome-esque.

This Firefox 4.0 mock-up shows a very Chrome-like interface.

(Credit: Mozilla)

One of the big assets Firefox has is its extensions system, which can be used to customize the browser. One I like is autoHideStatusbar, which reclaims the status bar real estate except when I need it in order to see where a link on a Web site leads. I also use Tree Style Tab to move tabs off to the left; I typically need vertical space more than horizontal.

In the same vein, those who were enamored of the Firefox 3.7 mock-up look can try it themselves in the real world with a three-step change LifeHacker put together.

The Web app era
How all these changes will shake out isn't clear yet. But what is clear is that influential developers believe thin frames are better than thickets of icons, menus, bars, and boxes.

The Web application trend is one reason this trend is important.

Consider for a moment Microsoft Word. Especially when the newer version's ribbon of icons is active, it requires a fair amount of area to house its controls.

Now consider Google Docs, which must add its word-processing user interface elements with those already present for the browser itself. Those using the application must bear a double burden. It's like going back to the era of 800x600-pixel displays.

Now factor in the Web application future--Picnik for photo editing, Zoho for office productivity, Bespin for programming, even Microsoft Office soon. These applications are increasing in number, sophistication, and importance, even if they aren't replacing desktop applications as soon as Google Chrome OS developers might hope.

A little bit of screen real estate saved in the browser is multiplied many times over across this range of applications. And of course, conventional Web browsing can benefit, too, offering the possibility of more information and less scrolling to get to it.

It takes real work to pare back a user interface without impairing software's utility. But until the day arrives when my screen is displayed on an entire office wall or directly on my retina, I'll hoard every pixel that browser developers can give me.

When the Israeli-Palestinian Webtop Ghost made its official beta launch Tuesday, it got us wondering what happened to all those other such Web desktops that have launched in recent years.

Several of them are still around. At least half a dozen are trying to prove what many doubt--that there's a market for a virtual desktop with built-in applications and widgets, plus communications and collaboration tools, all served via the browser.

Among those CNET News reached, Glide OS is now the biggest, with about 1 million users, followed by Desktoptwo with 200,000 users, Ghost with 180,000 users, Icloud with 170,000 users, Startforce with 70,000 users, and Cloudo with 30,000 users.

Though the numbers aren't overwhelming, they indicate at least some interest.

On the other hand, a couple of Webtops we've reported on, Jooce and AjaxWindows, appear to be out of commission, or at least their Web sites are. And one of the best known, You OS, called it quits last summer.

Yet those still standing believe their time is now slowly coming.

"What we've noticed in the last four months is that with virtually no media coverage, we've had a steady upsurge and it's purely viral," said Donald Leka, founder and CEO of TransMedia, which runs the Glide OS.

But Ray Valdes, research director at Gartner Research, is skeptical.

"I have not seen growth or traction among the Webtop companies over the past year," Valdes said. "From a long-term perspective, I don't see any change to current market trends, which are that Webtop ventures are not gaining market traction."

Still, investors are watching the Webtop market closely.

"We have a tremendous interest from venture capital," Leka said, underlining that TransMedia so far is wholly angel-funded. "Repeatedly we get calls on a weekly basis."

And Daniel Arthursson, CEO and founder of Icloud developer Xcerion, said his company just raised new capital from new and existing investors, including Northzone Ventures, which invested $10 million in 2007.

Though the Webtops are similar, each has its own approach. ... Read more

(Credit: CNET / Josh Lowensohn)

Netbooks are an incredibly exciting new product category, and one that's undergoing constant evolution. Designed to handle e-mail, Web browsing, and some basic software apps, they are somewhat limited when compared with most full-size laptops, but how limited? I wanted to find out.

I've dug into a few dozen popular sites that I use, and made note of basic performance through extended use. Did they work? Did they not work? These were things I wanted to test.

The verdict: overwhelmingly positive. Besides a few issues with Adobe Flash performance (which we get into later), it handles most things with speed and agility. Before delving any deeper though, let's go over the test machine and browsers we used:

The machine:
Dell Mini Inspiron 10 (a loaner review unit)
OS: Windows XP Home
Processor: Intel Atom Z530 dual-core 1.6ghz (533MHz FSB/512K L2Cache)
Memory: 1GB
Display: 10.1" widescreen (1366x768)
Graphics: Intel GMA 500
Retail cost as configured (before magic Dell coupons): $474

The browsers:
Internet Explorer 8 (v8.0), Google Chrome (v2.0.172.31), Firefox (v3.0.10). I would have loved to do additional testing in Safari and Opera, but for the sake of simplicity I stuck with the big three.

The browsers, and the OS were as lean as possible. None of the browsers was running any add-ons, or special plug-ins besides Java and the latest version of Adobe Flash. There were also no other programs running besides the Windows activity monitor.

For the sake of simplicity, I've divided up the sites I tested into two categories: work and play. Assuming you're buying a Netbook for either purpose, you're likely to dabble in both realms at some point.

Work

These are Web apps that let you get things done, be it business, homework, or personal scheduling.

Google Docs and Zoho--Both of these online office suites performed great. Zoho clearly has far more tools in one place than Google Docs does, so for the sake of this test I just used the ones that both shared which include word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations. The Netbook handled all of them without any slowdown, however... Read more

Adobe is taking Acrobat.com out of beta on Monday, and turning it into a business with paid user accounts. The service, which has more than 5 million registered users will retain its free version, however there are now usage limitations on certain features which can be unlocked by upgrading to one of the two new premium plans. These can be purchased on a monthly or yearly basis and cost $14.99 or $39 a month, or $149 or $390 a year respectively.

The "premium basic" plan allows for 10 PDF conversions per month, as well as up to five meeting participants though Adobe's ConnectNow tool. The "premium plus" plan dials that up to unlimited PDF conversions, and meetings with up to 20 users. Both premium plans also gain phone and Web support. In comparison, free users will only be able to convert five PDFs, and connect with two people at once in ConnectNow, which is just one less connection than users were able to have during Acrobat's beta period.

Along with the move to paid accounts, Acrobat.com is getting a new collaborative app called Tables that handles basic spreadsheets. Just like Buzzword, Adobe's online word processor, this lets multiple users work on a spreadsheet at once, as well as track revisions and roll back to earlier versions.

Tables may not have as many features as some more established online spreadsheet tools, but Adobe is promising to get it there.

(Credit: CNET)

In a call with CNET News last week, Eric Larson, who is Adobe's director of product management and marketing for Acrobat.com, told me that Tables is not quite ready to replace Microsoft's Excel, which is why it's being rolled out in Adobe's Acrobat Labs section first. Larson did stress, however, that it will allow users to do things Excel can't, like see where other people are on the document, and provide a subtle warning when users are making a visual change that will affect others.

Little things that users are used to doing in normal software, like changing column width or sorting order, yields a small warning message that tells them to think twice if there are other people working on it at the same time. It also provides the option to switch to "private view," which lets users make edits without the changes going live to the main document. Adobe is hoping this type of work flow will cut down on the e-mail overload, and versioning problems that typical office software creates.

I gave the tool a spin over the weekend, and for basic spreadsheet tasks it's quite nice. Unlike Google Docs, which opens up to a sea of white cells, Tables opens up to just three columns and five rows which can be expanded one at a time. It's also incredibly responsive, letting you re-organize, and snap around columns and individual cells as if you were using desktop software.

Google Docs now supports .docx and .xlsx, two files formats found in nearly every modern day word processor or spreadsheet editor. Previously, when trying to import either of these formats into Google Docs, the service would simply tell the user it was not supported.

Google has allowed users to open up these files from Gmail or in Google search results since the introduction of its HTML-document viewer last year, but hadn't allowed direct opening of them in Docs without the extra conversion step. Gmail still only offers the options to view received .docx and .xlsx-formatted files in its HTML viewer, or download it directly to the desktop. In comparison, supported files can be sent directly to Google Docs.

Compared with previous versions of the popular .doc and .xls formats, the "x" variants bring with them smaller file size and the addition of Open XML. These two are also the default format in the latest versions of Microsoft's Excel and Word 2007, two widely used production tools.

Still missing is a way to import .pptx files from PowerPoint 2007 without losing formatting. Just like it used to do with .docx and .xlsx files, Google Docs strips things like themes, transitions and artwork. Competitor Zoho has offered support for these Open Office XML formats since early 2008.

Previously, Google Docs users would see this screen when trying to import a .Docx or .Xlsx file type.

(Credit: CNET)

(Credit: Larry Dignan/ZDNet)

This was originally published at ZDNet's Between the Lines.

Zoho on Tuesday rolled out a unified mobile front for its suite of Web applications.

Zoho had offered some basic iPhone and Windows Mobile support previously, but now is unifying applications like Mail, Calendar, Writer, Sheet, Show, and Creator into one interface.

The mobile applications will run on iPhone, Android, BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, and Symbian operating systems.

The company also added that some of its business applications will also be supported in the future. Zoho added in a blog post that it plans on supporting Palm in the future.

As noted before, it's a bit surprising that Google hasn't acquired Zoho, which honestly is much better than Google Docs. Meanwhile, Google could use Zoho's business apps to be more of an enterprise player.