[xasop]

Aside from locking users out from installing their own OS on a Microsoft device, what else have they done?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

This is an early example, but still one of the best, thanks to the internal memos revealed as a result of the ensuing antitrust case. Microsoft haven't changed their modus operandi since then; a more recent example is their push for standardisation on their unnecessarily complicated OOXML document format, despite the existing (and much simpler) OpenDocument format which achieves the same goal. If any testament is needed to the complexity Microsoft are trying to force onto the rest of the world's developers, how about the fact that Microsoft's own office suite didn't support it fully until more than four years after it was adopted as a standard?

[Lord Dave]

Aside from locking users out from installing their own OS on a Microsoft device, what else have they done?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

This is an early example, but still one of the best, thanks to the internal memos revealed as a result of the ensuing antitrust case. Microsoft haven't changed their modus operandi since then; a more recent example is their push for standardisation on their unnecessarily complicated OOXML document format, despite the existing (and much simpler) OpenDocument format which achieves the same goal. If any testament is needed to the complexity Microsoft are trying to force onto the rest of the world's developers, how about the fact that Microsoft's own office suite didn't support it fully until more than four years after it was adopted as a standard?

Point taken.

[Pete Svarrior]

a more recent example is their push for standardisation on their unnecessarily complicated OOXML document format, despite the existing (and much simpler) OpenDocument format which achieves the same goal. If any testament is needed to the complexity Microsoft are trying to force onto the rest of the world's developers, how about the fact that Microsoft's own office suite didn't support it fully until more than four years after it was adopted as a standard?

Microsoft Office supported the format they wanted to standardise, in the state they wanted to see it standardised at. ISO forced a number of changes which led to Office 2007 being completely incompatible with the now-approved "Strict" format. Microsoft, for the sake of consistency, does not patch its software to make major changes in supported file formats. The idea is that a document saved in Office 2007 will work in Office 2007, and the nice elderly secretary at FluffyBiz Co. doesn't need to wonder if it's Office 2007 12.0.42.69 or Office 2007 12.1.666.0. This is an approach that you may disagree with, but to call it a failure to implement the format would be ridiculous.

At this point in time the development of Office 2010 is well underway, with the plans to release it in early 2009. Given how late in the cycle the changes were demanded, it's a show of good will that they even provided read support to the "Strict" format. The fact that they also continue to support ODF despite having a standard of their own further reinforces their commitment to interoperability and standards-compliance.

As for achieving the same goals: Sure, if by "same goals" you mean "the other standard also covers the basics, kinda". ODF offers no way to easily ensure that documents will look identical (or even remotely similar) across devices - it offers no font control other than name-matching. Meanwhile, OOXML gives us OpenType and PANOSE. ODF's Dublin Core metadata support can at best be described as "partial", while OOXML is ready for any data nerd to cream his pants. And ODF has no extensibility rules, so it's not like we can fix it easily. Surprisingly enough, the evil and anti-openness OOXML does have a clear NVDL schema for that express purpose.

So yeah, if you want a standard that lets you write a bunch of text and then print that text on paper, ODF is perfectly sufficient, and indeed simpler. If you want a format that actually considers the modern world and is prepared for future changes, OOXML is a no-brainer choice.

[xasop]

Microsoft Office supported the format they wanted to standardise, in the state they wanted to see it standardised at.

How very convenient for them. Wouldn't it be great if all software developers completely ignored real standards and instead supported the standards they would prefer to exist?

[Pete Svarrior]

How very convenient for them. Wouldn't it be great if all software developers completely ignored real standards and instead supported the standards they would prefer to exist?

As far as I know, Microsoft did not contest the changes. In fact, they welcomed them and shifted their efforts to do their best to support the changes as quickly as they could without depriving themselves of profit (see: the delay in Office 2010's release to ensure they can at least do the Transitional spec right). It is, however, unreasonable to expect them to support the ISO standard before the ISO standard existed.