Microsoft’s upcoming productivity software suite, Office 2007, will bring about a change to the traditional file formats. While every version of Office prior was based off of 3 character file extensions, Office ‘07 will utilize 4 character file extensions. For example, documents will now be .docx, powerpoints will be .pptx and excel speadsheets will be .xlsx. Noticing a trend here? They are adding an x to the end of every file format.
Take a look at the whole list of file extensions at AviransPlace. The extra character denotes Office 2007’s reliance upon XML technology being used in the files, and probably some desperation to show consumers that they have actually changed something in this version. However, I don’t think it is particularly wise to move into the 4 character file extensions region. The industry standard has pretty much been 3 character file extension, with the exception of programming languages such as .c and .java. Unfortunately, due to this change not all file formats are backwards compatible. Most only work back to Office 2000 so if you are still on Office 98, Microsoft will want you to upgrade.
PaulStamatiou.com runs on the Thesis Theme for WordPress
Thesis is the search engine optimized WordPress theme of choice for serious online publishers. If you’re a blogger who doesn’t understand a lot of PHP, Thesis will give a ton of functionality without having to alter any code. For the advanced, Thesis has incredible customization possibilities via Thesis hooks.
With so many design options, you can use the template over and over and never have it look like the same site. The theme is robust and flexible enough not only to accommodate a site like PaulStamatiou.com, but also to enable the site to run far more efficiently than it ever has before.
I used the Scribe WordPress plugin and service to optimize this blog post for SEO.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
I suppose it was too much to hope that Microsoft would use .ott for the new Word files.
I rather liked using OpenOffice on the PC, but now I’ve got a macmini, (I blame this mostly on you Paul- you shouldn’t have raved about them so much- making me spend my hard earned student cash!), I don’t like either of the options for loading OpenOffice under OSX. And anyway, Word 2004 for Mac runs better then the Windows version of Word, so I can’t really complain.
Yay, Microsoft discovered XML.
Now how to advertise it..hm..I know! Put an x to every extension they offer!
Sad. Can’t really find the meaning in that.
I was under the impression that these 4 character file extensions were only in place for the beta testing of Office 2007. Oh well, I must have been misinformed.
that sucks, a 4 digit file extension aint the standarrt
“The industry standard has pretty much been 3 character file extension, with the exception of programming languages such as .c and .java.”
Really?
So I guess there’s no such thing as .html, .jpeg, .mpeg, or .pages?
Have you noticed the trend towards abbreviated extensions: .htm, .jpg, .mpg? While .jpeg and .jpg work interchangeably, .jpg is more common, as noted by Wikipedia.
Oh and don’t forget about .tar.gz, .sitx, .shtml, .macbin, .btoa, .tbz2, .Z, .z, .tar-z, .tar-gz, .mime, .pf, .gtar, .gnutar, .uu, .ue, and .y
No, I’m not making those up.
Ask a standard, non-hardcore geek about those file extensions. They will hardly consider those widespread usage as well as not industry standard – something rolled out and supported by huge establishments like .dmg, .zip, .tar, .rar for archives. (.tar.gz is simply an extension of the gunzip archive format on top of a unix tape archive)
You only need to look at a screenshot of Office 2007 to see that this is the biggest non-superficial change to Office since, hmm, I would probably say Office ‘95, imo. No offence, but a comment like that makes you sound pretty ignorant.
People will go along with it.
They did the same thing with the move from .asp to .aspx in terms of web server-side programming. That was a big upgrade. At the very least the change in extensions here is a publicity stunt, at the most we’ll see significant changes in the new release.
Either way it’s Microsoft, and they’re hard to ignore.
“Ask a standard, non-hardcore geek about those file extensions.”
Okay, but maybe a non-hardcore geek who uses iLife and iWork will have heard of .pages and .band?
I’m definetly seeing a trend away from the old three-character extentions.
I’m not sure who you’re quoting, but I have to disagree. Most people care about the interface because that is the program to them. Presumably when you say “everyone”, you mean developers who have to write software to play nice with Office and its file formats?
I can’t believe MS would change their standard extension (.doc/.ppt). At the same time, it is expected since there won’t be anything revolutionary about the “new” office, aside from a glossy interface and some nicer graphs. Wasn’t MS supposed to go with an open format this time around? Or maybe they’ll just be able to read the open document format.
(Got here from your reboot. Nice job!)
Wow I’m starting to sound like quite the MS Office fanboy, but there’s just so much … wrongness, washing around here.
What do you think a format based on XML is?? Sure it’s not Open open, but it’s much better than totally opaque, right?
And “revolutionary”? When you offer a product to 400 million people and are going to try and persuade them to upgrade, the last thing you want to do is create something that is radically different from what they’re used to. Evolutionary change > revolutionary pandering to a few hardcore geeks.
Lame file extension aside, this doesn’t really matter.
You can still open up documents from Office 97 in Office 2007.
Just not the other way around. Office 2007 is not the only program that has limited compatability with it’s 10 year old predecessor.
I’m not a techie, but I love the blog, Paul.
About the topic: I’ve been using Office 12 for a few months, and it’s grown on me. The most practical new feature for me has been be the ability to save files as .pdf
You can also save them as compatible as Word 97-2003 files for those concerned. The only problem I can see is that different groups of people will be using different formats. Some early adopters would use the .docx, while others would stick with the old-style .doc file.
And I thought that the “x” at the end of the “.doc” file had something to do with moving forward with the people at Adobe Acrobat, whose future files are supposed to be .pdf-x files. That was just my guess, though, after I heard about pdf-x files. Otherwise, I assumed the “x” was for the beta version only.
Try not to judge the Office just by its extensions. There are lots of improvements in Office 2007, but it’s a lot cooler to say that Microsoft sucks than that it did a pretty nice job.
First, the .docx or .xlsx extensions must be different from the old .doc or .xls ones because the format is really different: the new 2007 files are truly XML documents while the others weren’t. Actually a .docx, for example, is really a zip file. Change its extension and you’ll be able to see various XML files tied together through some relational system.
The second most important difference is actually the user interface that uses “ribbons”. Looking from a programmer’s point of view, you can now customize the entire Office interface really easy through some XML declarations. Also, it’s a lot more managed code so things are a bit safer.
Just my 0.02$
Why couldn’t they have gone with .dox and .xlx?
Those who’ve known the .doc extension for the last 15+ years would immediately notice the difference, yet it’d still be a 3 character extension.
Having said that (I only did a cursory search to see if there already was a .dox in use somewhere), I am not sure it really matters whether it’s 3 or 4 characters. I mean, I will watch an .mpg just as readily as I’d watch .mpeg and not materially perceive a difference.
I speak as “just an end user”. For those of you in the programming community, educate us laypeople and tell us why it matters to you either way…tomayto, tomahto…who cares?
And please don’t invoke backwards compatibility in the discussion, just because that’s a separate issue – I’m getting the distinct impression this discussion is focussed solely on the aesthetics of the extension length, as clearly 4 character extensions have proven to be seemlessly functional in a 3 character extension world (many examples cited above, no need to add any more)…
I could care less about the 4 letter extension. The bigger pain in the ass is having an organization with half of your users on 2007 and the other half on older versions not being able to open the new document format. Of course you can go into options and change the save settings to automatically save to the older version but you have to do it for each component individually. They want the older versions to become obsolete so they can MAKE MORE MONEY. Greedy Bastards!!!!!!!!!
hello it is test. WinRAR provides the full RAR and ZIP file support, can decompress CAB, GZIP, ACE and other archive formats.