Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th May 2010 15:41 UTC
Microsoft The Microsoft empire is built upon two pillars: the Windows operating system, and Microsoft Office. Windows 7 made its way unto the scene last year, and now it's time to work on the other pillar. Today, Microsoft officially launched Microsoft Office 2010 and SharePoint 2010. Regular customers will be able to purchase the new versions next month, starting at 119 USD.
Order by: Score:
Microsoft should be punished
by darknexus on Wed 12th May 2010 16:15 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

for creating Sharepoint. Seriously, I don't know what they were smoking when they came up with their implementation of a cms. It's buggy, over-complicated, and can be a real bitch to program for.
I don't really dislike the other Office products, the exception of course being the new ribbon UI. Still, at least the other products are useful.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Microsoft should be punished
by Hiev on Wed 12th May 2010 16:33 UTC in reply to "Microsoft should be punished"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

As a sharepoint user I can tell you to stop smoking crack.

Reply Score: 1

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

As a sharepoint user I can tell you to stop smoking crack.


As a former sharepoint user, I can tell you to take your own advice.

Reply Score: 12

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Dude, blame your incapacity to understand the product, not the product it self, of even better, give me an example of another ORM witch according you it does the job better.

Reply Score: 2

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Dude, blame your incapacity to understand the product, not the product it self, of even better, give me an example of another ORM witch according you it does the job better.


For starters, you don't even know what technology you're using. SharePoint, LiveLink, etc. are CMS systems - Content Management Systems - not ORM (Object Relational Mapping, or Operational Risk Management - though they sure do insert a lot of operational risk that needs to be managed).

CMS is basically a glorified RCS (Revision Control System), and one that makes itself known typically through website interfaces.

Now that we got the discussion on the right technology, we can approach your "present a better option".

ANY RCS does a better job than LiveLink and SharePoint at revision and content control. LiveLink and SharePoint make their case primarily on user interfaces - as they target them at PHB users.

Sadly, most RCS system's don't have user interfaces that target the PHB's in this world. But that doesn't mean they're not there as at least Subversion has one such interface - WebDAV - that can be used.

SVN+WebDAV. You get all the same features/benefits, and superior version control. You also don't need specialized tools as you can mount WebDAV sites as a drive in Windows and OS's.

Reply Score: 6

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Dude, we are talking about configurations here, not about how good is one product compared to other, if you want to make a commertial of that project you can do it, but we are talking about easy configurations here, so tell me about the configurations.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Hiev said: give me an example of another ORM witch according you it does the job better.

And in the next comment he replied: Dude, we are talking about configurations here, not about how good is one product compared to other

Umm...*Cough*

Edited 2010-05-12 19:25 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

You are so damn right, I apologise to all for my stupidity.

Edited 2010-05-12 21:19 UTC

Reply Score: 6

cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

Funny a senior project at my college used sharepoint... I when describing it's features nearly ever point that was made I was able to reply but hasn't *nix done that more simply for years in a quicker to implement way?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Microsoft should be punished
by Phloptical on Wed 12th May 2010 22:48 UTC in reply to "Microsoft should be punished"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

The decision to not include the classic UI as an option should have gotten the entire Office dev team bitch-slapped.

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Much as I hate the ribbon, how long would you have Microsoft hold on if they wish to move forward? I don't agree with their UI direction, but I'll give them props for actually trying something new. We all complain that Microsoft holds too tightly to backward compatibility. Well, we can't have it both ways. Either they hold on, or they move forward. Two UIs means more code to maintain, more bugs, more bloat... and Office is buggy and bloated enough as it is and keeps getting bigger with each version it seems.
I think 2000 was Microsoft's magic number. Windows 2000 rocked, and Office 2000 was awesome. It's a pity they haven't been able to move forward without creeping featurism.

Reply Score: 4

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

The inclusion of an alternate toolbar theme represents backward thinking? Why is the ribbon UI better? What does it offer to the end user, other than more phone calls to me all day when they have to hunt and dig for the pivot table field list in Excel?

Is the classic theme as an option really an impedance to "the way forward"? All the Ribbon represents, is Microsoft taking a page out of Apple's sanctimonious UI design doctrine. And also, why is the classic theme (to some degree) still offered in the OS and not in the Office package?

For the record, I don't mind the Ribbon. But then again, I don't perform advanced functions in Office, nor do I consider myself to be a "Power User", nor does my job require me to perform tasks in Office quickly.

Reply Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Look, I'm not arguing about the ribbon itself. I despise it personally. But you're talking about a lot more than a theme here. You said the classic UI. That means toolbars, menu bar, and everything related to it. A theme is one thing, maintaining two separate UIs is another and would be a recipe for disaster when Microsoft clearly doesn't care about the classic UI anymore.

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

The old UI is already way over burdened. Keeping it around as an option would entail having to cram even more things into that already over-burdened UI as more features are added. And those features would be hidden from the user, as they'd be buried in that byzantine UI, and things would simply get worse and worse with each subsequent release.

Also, there's something to be said for forcing the users to move on to the new UI. If the old one were available as an option, lots of people would simply use that out of force of habit, even if they would've found the new UI to be way better. Which would lead back to my first point.

Maybe you should read some entries on the excellent blog of Jensen Harris, starting with this one:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/the-story-of-the-r...

It'll show how the old UI simply could not be scaled any further. New features crammed into it were hidden from the user. Menus, toolbars, task panes, etc. Something needed to be done. And a clean break was best.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

New features crammed into it were hidden from the user. Menus, toolbars, task panes, etc. Something needed to be done. And a clean break was best.


If Microsoft were truly interested in a clean UI break, in UI consistency across Windows applications, and thereby in improving the "experience" for their users, then why didn't Microsoft simply publish a set of "ribbon rules" (a specification, if you will) to define that ribbon UI consistency, and then let any developer who wanted to simply go ahead and implement a ribbon interface for their application?

No, with Microsoft, instead we get this:
http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archive/2008/07/20/the-evil-of-the-of...
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/591-microsofts-office-ui-patent-trap-...

This pretty much guarantees that some Windows applications (mostly, those from Microsoft) will have a ribbon interface, and other Windows applications (those not from Microsoft) won't ... making for a horribly confused UI environment in Windows.

Just typical.

PS: One remembers, of course, bygone days when Microsoft used to insist that "look and feel" was not protectable IP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp...

The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface"


Edited 2010-05-13 07:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

1. Microsoft's position is that the old menus/toolbars are fine for apps where such a UI isn't overburdened. So there's no need for every app to use a Ribbon UI.

2. UI consistency among all 1st and 3rd party apps is overrated. Web pages have different UIs and users get along just fine.

3. There are multiple ribbon components provided by third party developer component makers like DevExperss, provided by MFC, and provided by Win32 itself. And there are many non-Microsoft apps that use these to implement Ribbons, and they're just fine.

4. As for your complaint that Microsoft seeks to disallow OO.o from ripping off the Ribbon UI for which Microsoft spent millions on R&D, while at the same time allowing any and every app that doesn't directly compete with Office to use it, I really couldn't care less.

5. Your post is irrelevant to the subject that was being discussed, and you know that.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Microsoft's position is that the old menus/toolbars are fine for apps where such a UI isn't overburdened. So there's no need for every app to use a Ribbon UI.


http://www.debenu.com/blog/windows-7-paint-wordpad-and-the-ribbon-i...

Paint, Notepad and Wordpad all have an "overburdened UI"?

Really?

Who would have thought?

As for your complaint that Microsoft seeks to disallow OO.o from ripping off the Ribbon UI for which Microsoft spent millions on R&D, while at the same time allowing any and every app that doesn't directly compete with Office to use it, I really couldn't care less.


Millions on R&D? Really? (They must be horribly inefficient then). So Microsoft invested millions on look-and-feel, for which Microsoft themselves set a precedent in courts that you cannot protect? Amusing. I bet the shareholders were pleased.

Oh, I suppose Microsoft figured they could always "license" it, and see if there were any suckers who took them up.

BTW: OpenOffice had a look at it, but from the comments received apparently fully two thirds of users hated the idea.

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/08/06/openoffice-org-demos-ribbon...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13556_3-10306521-61.html

Edited 2010-05-16 14:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

We all complain that Microsoft holds too tightly to backward compatibility

They have backwards compatibility in Office!?!?!?! News to me!!!
OpenOffice has more backwards compatibility for Microsoft Office, than Microsoft Office...

Reply Score: 3

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

I have to agree I think Office 2000 is the best. I still use it However, its getting old now bits of it do not work nicely with Vista (uggh feels slightly nauseous) or Windows 7 and I guess this will get worse.

I need Access and am considering an upgrade, but the vast expense and that utterly vile, counterintuitive, ribbon interface really puts me off.

Maybe I need to learn a new database app.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

The classic UI is dead... DEAL WITH IT.

The Ribbon is superior to menu drive systems.

Reply Score: 3

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

The classic UI is dead... DEAL WITH IT.

The Ribbon is superior to menu drive systems.


I'm not sure what superior means here - I only have to DEAL WITH IT if upgrade my MS Office. I can choose to not upgrade or use a different Office suite.

Reply Score: 2

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

The classic UI is dead... DEAL WITH IT.
The Ribbon is superior to menu drive systems.


That's a gross generalization. The ribbon is different from classic menus. It is useful for very complex applications with huge amounts of option which MUST be all on the screen at the same time. But there are few apps like that around. Most apps aren't that complex.

And the ribbon is hardly the only solution. Graphical/3D editing programs use floating toolbars and dockable dialogs, for example.

Simple apps don't need such solutions and shoving it down their throat is a grave mistake. Take Notepad, for example. A regular menu (which is mostly level 1 depth) and a simple classic toolbar are all it needs. Adding the ribbon to it was a mistake IMO.

Because the problem with the ribbon and similar solutions is that they're context-aware and ever changing. It's harder for the average user to cope with that. In simple applications it introduces a level of abstraction that's simply overkill.

Now, getting back to Office: why the hell is it so damn complex? Who uses all that stuff? I don't doubt there are people who do, but I suspect something like 90% of people only need basic editing features. Alignment, indentation, fonts, colors, lists, tables, insert pic. Plus a few choice extra features like spelling, footnotes and tables of content.

Something like AbiWord or WordPad.

Reply Score: 4

nboxer Member since:
2006-12-11

MS new direction is a dead end. Many accountants and other office workers are using office 2003. There is no mandate to use 2007 ... so 2010 is dead in the water. No one will be upgrading. Works fine in XP or W7. So there you have it. No one gives a RatsAss about sharepoint.. our world is spreadsheets, word proceessors and sometimes powerpoint. The rest is taken care in ERP systems.

Reply Score: 1

Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

If you read the (extremely long) blog posts of the team that designed the Ribbon interface, they say that the one of their main reasons to move to design a different UI was to have only one place for each function.

The rationale was that if each command is in 10 different places there is no definitive place to look if you're trying to find one. For example in Word 2003 if you didn't remember where something was you had to look at the open toolbars, then look through 3+ nested levels of menus, then look at the side-panels, then look at some other kind of side-panels but with different name and then bring up all the hidden toolbars.

With ribbon there is only one place to look for commands. If it's not there then it simply isn't anyware.

He also said that the old UI was holding them back. They wanted to add more stuff to Word and they either had to hide them under 3 levels of menus or invent some confusing new UI widget to contain them (like the two different kind of side-panels). With the Ribbon they can simply add another tab of controls, or if the change doesn't warrant adding a tab, they can put it on a context sensitive one.

I know that a modal interface is a bad interface most times, but when a program becomes so complex maybe it's not so bad. For novice users 90% of what they do is in the main tab and for the remaining 10% they would probably have to search the UI to find what they wanted. For experienced users a good portion of what they do is also on the main tab and for the rest they probably know the shortcut.

So, you may like the Ribbon UI or not, but if you think about it, having an option for the classic UI would be contrary to their design goals.

Reply Score: 2

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

So instead of endless menu tree's, we're stuck with the potentially endless scrolling ribbon to accommodate more buttons/widgets/what-have-you that I might want to drop on my ribbon? "Where's that button?" Oh yeah, I have to scroll 4 inches to the right off the screen for it.

The ribbon is like working in your cubicle with all the drawers to your desk and filing cabinets open, but yet you can't close.

I'm not saying we should go back in time to that POS Wordperfect 5.1, but come on!? I would like to get out of Office 2003 where I work. Mainly because we can then export SAP data and not have to worry about row limits in Excel. Unfortunately though, I now have to plan a 6 month long detailed project to roll out a stupid f'ing Office package to a global set of users, in order to minimize impact to the business.

Reply Score: 2

Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

So instead of endless menu tree's, we're stuck with the potentially endless scrolling ribbon to accommodate more buttons/widgets/what-have-you that I might want to drop on my ribbon?

A UI that has to perform an 'endless' number of functions has to categorize them somehow, be it an 'endless' menu tree, an 'endless' number of tabs or an 'endless' number of whatever else you can think. The difference is that the old UI could not scale any more, so they had to invent a new one.


The ribbon is like working in your cubicle with all the drawers to your desk and filing cabinets open, but yet you can't close.

If you are referring to vertical space, the ribbon consumes less space than the menu plus 2 toolbars (default) of the old UI[1]


Unfortunately though, I now have to plan a 6 month long detailed project to roll out a stupid f'ing Office package to a global set of users, in order to minimize impact to the business.

As I said before, the old UI could not scale any more. The needed to invent a new UI scheme and, whatever that was, users would have to undergo training.


The point of my original message wasn't that the Ribbon is a good interface (although I think it is), but that keeping the old UI around would be against their design goals.

Reply Score: 1

nboxer Member since:
2006-12-11

A UI that has to perform an 'endless' number of functions has to categorize them somehow, be it an 'endless' menu tree, an 'endless' number of tabs or an 'endless' number of whatever else you can think. The difference is that the old UI could not scale any more, so they had to invent a new one.


A typical user of MS office uses 20-30% of functions. This has been true since the days of Lotus 123. So scalablity isnt the issue, its ease of use. No one is looking for more functions. At some point products peak. We reached that back in 2000-2003.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Microsoft should be punished
by Babi Asu on Wed 12th May 2010 22:54 UTC in reply to "Microsoft should be punished"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

I have compared several FOS alternatives before using SharePoint, they simply suck to the bone. Even one of them has a pro version that cost much more than MOS.

Reply Score: 2

Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

I have compared several FOS alternatives before using SharePoint, they simply suck to the bone. Even one of them has a pro version that cost much more than MOS.

I have used several commercial alternatives and they suck even more compared to Sharepoint. Most of them can do basic stuff quite good, but try get them work on enviroment with 10k people, try customise them and you quickly go straight to hell.

Typical problem with Sharepoint is that companies have no clue what they actually want and then they just put one up. Management:"We want Sharepoint!" Techguy:"Okey I installed it on server behind Steves porn magazines." This is so common scene that it explains why so many has bad experience on Sharepoint. It's not something you simply installl and start use. Look Ferrari site and you see something nice done with Sharepoint.

Reply Score: 2

My favorite feature!
by fretinator on Wed 12th May 2010 16:37 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

The two scoops of Innovation they put in every box.

Reply Score: 3

Performance?
by Temcat on Wed 12th May 2010 16:55 UTC
Temcat
Member since:
2005-10-18

How is the performance compared to 2003 and 2007?
I'm particularly interested in Word.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Performance?
by ebasconp on Wed 12th May 2010 17:36 UTC in reply to "Performance?"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Why do you need a high-performance word processing application?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Performance?
by Valhalla on Wed 12th May 2010 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

He is a very fast typer.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Performance?
by turrini on Wed 12th May 2010 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance?"
turrini Member since:
2006-10-31

Maybe he wants to play the Wolfenstein with Bill as protagonist inside word/excel easter eggs.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Performance?
by vivainio on Wed 12th May 2010 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Why do you need a high-performance word processing application?


You need a high performance powerpoint application, unfortunately.

I have seen powerpoints that take 5 seconds, easily, to open the next slide in openoffice.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Performance?
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 12th May 2010 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Performance?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

are they running from the optical drive?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Performance?
by porcel on Wed 12th May 2010 18:08 UTC in reply to "Performance?"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Every single version of Office has always consumed more RAM, been slowed to load and added unnecessary complexity and this will not change now. It would be, sort of, breaking tradition.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Performance?
by evert on Wed 12th May 2010 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance?"
evert Member since:
2005-07-06

My very subjective assessment is that 2010 loads faster than 2007. That is why I skipped 2007 (2003 was fine enough), but now I'm going for 2010.

Reply Score: 4

lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/12/office_web_apps_linux_licen...

If businesses want to run Microsoft Office's new web-based apps on Linux machines, they'll need a buy a full Office license for each user - even though the suite's desktop apps don't run on Linux.


I think I can see a potential issue here. If users need a license for a product, then that is fair enough, but I can't see a way that Microsoft can legitimately charge people for a product that Microsoft doesn't sell. Namely, it seems to me that Microsoft cannot legitimately charge people (using Linux) a license for running Microsoft Office (wherever) if there simply is no "Microsoft Office for Linux" product for sale.

Reply Score: 3

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

uhh...

Web Office is meant as a companion to office, not a replacement.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

uhh... Web Office is meant as a companion to office, not a replacement.


That isn't the problem. The problem is Microsoft saying that "Buisness users of Linux" will need a full license for Microsoft Office, and what Microsoft are selling with "a full license for Microsoft Office" is a right for someone to run a full-featured Microsoft Office, and Microsoft do not provide any such a product for "Buisness users of Linux".

So Microsoft are trying to charge for something they are not providing.

This is a potential lawsuit in the making, IMO.

Reply Score: 2

Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

What are you talking about? A license for Microsoft Office gives you the right to run Office and the right to use the Web app. How is it reason for a lawsuit if you don't meet the minimum requirements for one of the things provided with the license? Can I buy a license and then sue them if I don't own a computer? Or are they obligated to provided versions of Office for every OS under the sun?

If you use linux and want to buy a license knowing that you won't be able to use the offline part of office it's your choice.

I agree that they should have a way to license only the web apps, but I can't see a way this is reason for a lawsuit.

PS. the above are true only for business customers that want to serve their own instance off sharepoint. The web apps are free for the public.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What are you talking about? A license for Microsoft Office gives you the right to run Office and the right to use the Web app. How is it reason for a lawsuit if you don't meet the minimum requirements for one of the things provided with the license? Can I buy a license and then sue them if I don't own a computer? Or are they obligated to provided versions of Office for every OS under the sun?

If you use linux and want to buy a license knowing that you won't be able to use the offline part of office it's your choice.

I agree that they should have a way to license only the web apps, but I can't see a way this is reason for a lawsuit.


Microsoft offered coupons for Linux.

Now Microsoft are claiming that those Business Linux users, who have a licensed product they got (albeit indirectly) via Microsoft, and who could potentially use THAT product (Specifically, Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop, aka SLED) to access Microsoft Offfice Online, nevertheless will now need to purchase a full license for Microsoft Office.

This would all be fine except for one thing ... Microsoft Office doesn't run on Linux. Microsoft do not offer a version of Microsoft Office that will actually work for those customers. Hence Microsoft would be requiring their (Linux coupon) customers to buy something additional (a desktop license for Microsoft Office) that won't work (i.e. something that is actually useless to said customers).

Lawsuit time, IMO. It would be no sillier than thousands of other lawsuits that seem to get up.

Edited 2010-05-13 03:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

The terms appear to be that anyone using web Office for business also needs a license of desktop Office, regardless of what OS that user might be using. Your post implied that the terms specifically targeted Linux, when it doesn't. That provision is actually meant to target Windows users, to make sure that those using web apps for business purposes, aren't using them for free. And as a side-effect it covers users of other OSes too, and rightly so. Why should business users of other OSes get easier terms to use web Office than Windows users? It makes no sense that business users on Windows would have to pay but business users on other OSes could use those apps for free.

There's no basis for a law suit at all (it's not like business Linux users were using web Office before, and suddenly had the license change under their feet), though I'm sure you're hoping for such.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The terms appear to be that anyone using web Office for business also needs a license of desktop Office, regardless of what OS that user might be using. Your post implied that the terms specifically targeted Linux, when it doesn't. That provision is actually meant to target Windows users, to make sure that those using web apps for business purposes, aren't using them for free. And as a side-effect it covers users of other OSes too, and rightly so. Why should business users of other OSes get easier terms to use web Office than Windows users? It makes no sense that business users on Windows would have to pay but business users on other OSes could use those apps for free. There's no basis for a law suit at all (it's not like business Linux users were using web Office before, and suddenly had the license change under their feet), though I'm sure you're hoping for such.


This is all solid reasoning except for one thing ... Microsoft gave out coupons for Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED).

There would be no problem in any of this except for that.

Microsoft are now offering a service (online MS Office) that these Linux coupon customers could use, if they were licesnsed to do so. There would be no problem there if Microsoft were to also offer them a license they could actually use, but Microsoft don't.

There is no version of Microsoft Office that will run on SLED, yet Microsoft's SLED coupon customers are being asked to pay for a license they can't use, in order to use another product (to whit, Microsoft Office online).

I'm pretty sure there would be something actionable here.

Microsoft could cure it pretty simply, IMO, by offering a means to license their SLED coupon customers via, say, a special reduced-price for MS Office online in conjunction with SLED/OpenOffice on those customer's desktop. I'd think that would probably be an acceptable resolution.

Reply Score: 2

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

This is all solid reasoning except for one thing ... Microsoft gave out coupons for Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED).

There would be no problem in any of this except for that.


When they gave away (sold) those coupons did they then indicate that SLED would work with future versions of Office (specifically version 2010)?

Of course they did not, so no problem at all.

Reply Score: 1

.NET in Office 2010
by WorknMan on Thu 13th May 2010 00:22 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

What's the status of .NET in 2010 (or Office in general)? Have they baked it in as a 'first class citizen' for creating macros and such? VBA is just so.... 2003 ;)

Reply Score: 2

OGM! Finally!
by JAlexoid on Thu 13th May 2010 00:24 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Along with easy access to documents from virtually anywhere, Web Apps help preserve the look and feel of a document regardless of device, so content and format are generally preserved while moving between the PC, phone and browser.

Finally! We have been waiting for this "feature" for how long? Since Office 97? They finally got to doing it...

Reply Score: 3

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 13th May 2010 01:30 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Looking great; I ran the beta version on Windows 7 not too long ago and it was definitely an improvement. If you're running Office 2007 you may find the 'reason' to upgrade being a lot less than a person running Office 2003 since it is more of a refinement rather than a revolution as with the case of 2003 -> 2007. Office 2010 has a more refined ribbon based on the feedback they received, and I found over all the stability, reliability and speed is great but then again I've never had problem with it in the past.

The big question for me is what Office 2011 will bring to the Mac platform and whether it addresses Office 2008 deficiencies or whether I am better off migrating over to the Windows 7 world with the release of Office 2010, and the scheduled release of Live Essentials 2011 at the end of this year. I really do hope that Office 2011 does address the short comings of 2008 but I have a feeling that bitter disappointment will be the only thing that'll be inside the box when I open it up.

Edited 2010-05-13 01:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

Is Office still programmed in C++? if so, then there is a lot to be implied about .NET.

Reply Score: 2

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

then there is a lot to be implied about .NET.


Like what? please enlighten me.

Reply Score: 1

v Finally....
by PathagenX on Thu 13th May 2010 10:50 UTC
Recently installed the beta
by morglum666 on Thu 13th May 2010 13:05 UTC
morglum666
Member since:
2005-07-06

I recently installed the beta and used Word 2010 and again hands down it crushes the last remnants of competition. If you are on office 2003 or earlier you should also try Outlook 2007 or later as its also one of the best products for general use I have ever used.

Office defines "Friendly". Office 2010 ribbon is customizable, which removes the final gripe people had about Office 2007.

My general feeling with Microsoft is that they are so-so on the client OS front (Xp was fine, vista was terrible, 7 is sweet), really solid on the server arena (2000,2003,2008 server) and quite impressive in their other offerings (Active directory, SQL Server, and Office is best in class).

I don't understand why any linux user wouldn't be excited about using a web based version of office. It lets you use your OS of choice and a productivity application that is best in class. Google doesn't even come close, sorry.

Morglum

Reply Score: 2

RE: Recently installed the beta
by darknexus on Thu 13th May 2010 14:11 UTC in reply to "Recently installed the beta"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I don't understand why any linux user wouldn't be excited about using a web based version of office. It lets you use your OS of choice and a productivity application that is best in class.


Well, there is the little matter of your data being given to Microsoft. Aside from that though, will it work on Linux? I'm actually asking, as Microsoft isn't exactly known for programming things in a cross-browser way, and typically they tie their web products to IE somehow.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Recently installed the beta
by lemur2 on Fri 14th May 2010 00:01 UTC in reply to "Recently installed the beta"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I recently installed the beta and used Word 2010 and again hands down it crushes the last remnants of competition. If you are on office 2003 or earlier you should also try Outlook 2007 or later as its also one of the best products for general use I have ever used. Office defines "Friendly". Office 2010 ribbon is customizable, which removes the final gripe people had about Office 2007. My general feeling with Microsoft is that they are so-so on the client OS front (Xp was fine, vista was terrible, 7 is sweet), really solid on the server arena (2000,2003,2008 server) and quite impressive in their other offerings (Active directory, SQL Server, and Office is best in class). I don't understand why any linux user wouldn't be excited about using a web based version of office. It lets you use your OS of choice and a productivity application that is best in class. Google doesn't even come close, sorry. Morglum


Here is a counter-viewpoint, written (by someone else) from a small business perspective, presented here in the interests of some balance to outlandish claims such as that quoted above:

http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/features/article.php/3881646/....

Microsoft is getting ready to ship Office 2010, but a lot of small businesses realize they don't need all the features (or licensing costs) that come with Microsoft Office. The front-runners for Office replacements are OpenOffice.org and Google Docs, but which one is right for your business?


Apart from the fact that there are perfectly viable, perfectly useable and functional free (and freedom, e.g. from audit by the BSA) solutions to Office software available to businesses, there is also the important points of data interoperability and data "sovreignity" to consider.

If one wants to be able to inter-operate, both now and into the future, with other businesses and government departments, who may use any of OpenDocument (ISO/IEC 26300), legacy MS Office (.doc et al) or ECMA 376 (.docx et al), then OpenOffice is the clear and obvious choice.

PS: Note that MS Office 2010 does not support either standards-compliant ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) nor OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500) formats.

Reply Score: 2