Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2008 23:01 UTC
Features, Office Ars reviews Office:Mac 2008, and concludes: "Perhaps the best thing that can be said about software that one uses in the course of working is that even if it doesn't make the work fun, it doesn't make it any worse, and that's certainly the story with Office 2008. Those spreadsheets, presentations and software reviews won't write themselves, but now it's a deal easier to make them look like they did. That it does that in just the way you'd want a great Macintosh program to behave is good news for Office workers."
Thread beginning with comment 294196
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Good work Microsoft
by CrazyDude1 on Fri 4th Jan 2008 07:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Good work Microsoft"
CrazyDude1
Member since:
2007-09-17

DocPain: First of all referring Microsoft as MICROS~1 etc shows your bias against them so your views really hold much lower credibility.

As far as looks of the document is concerned, my point is that if you make the exact same document in Word 2003 and then in Word 2007 (i.e. by doing the same things like same headings, same title etc), the document word 2007 produces is far better due to it's ability to do better layout, much more aesthetic fonts etc.

As a side note, Open office produces really crappy looking documents.

Edited 2008-01-04 07:09

Reply Parent Score: 6

v RE[3]: Good work Microsoft
by raver31 on Fri 4th Jan 2008 08:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Good work Microsoft"
RE[4]: Good work Microsoft
by andrewg on Fri 4th Jan 2008 08:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Good work Microsoft"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Open Office does not produce crappy looking documents

It does if you want to include charts in your document. Charts looked good in previous versions of MS Office but in 2007 and I am sure 2008 they look absolutely beautiful. Yes the charts in OpenOffice.org are functional but they are ugly.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Good work Microsoft
by sappyvcv on Fri 4th Jan 2008 10:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Good work Microsoft"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Ah, so it's only ok to have less credibility when you take a jab at Microsoft. Cool.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Good work Microsoft
by alexandru_lz on Fri 4th Jan 2008 12:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Good work Microsoft"
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

As far as looks of the document is concerned, my point is that if you make the exact same document in Word 2003 and then in Word 2007 (i.e. by doing the same things like same headings, same title etc), the document word 2007 produces is far better due to it's ability to do better layout, much more aesthetic fonts etc.

You mean that, if I use Comic Sans for my document, my document will suddenly look as if it was written by a 40-year old on Office 2008, as opposed to a 7-year old on 2003?

I don't get the "produces crappy looking documents". The fonts are the same, the formatting options are the same and so on. You could say this about a typesetting system that tries to clone TeX (and badly), but with a WYSIWYG -- sorry, the only one who produces crappy-looking documents is the user.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Good work Microsoft
by Doc Pain on Fri 4th Jan 2008 15:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Good work Microsoft"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"[...] sorry, the only one who produces crappy-looking documents is the user."

You're completely correct. The best tool cannot undo the mistakes its user makes. "Word", in the same way as NeoOffice or OpenOffice, offers standard templates for document parts and logical units (heading, subheading, paragraph, citation, emphasizing), but if the user tends to think "So this will be a heading... I click on 'bold font', then I raise the font size to 15, ah yes, and I like another font, and underlining. So now it looks funny", these functions are useless.

Can you imagine what joy it is to reformat a diploma thesis that "looks funny"? :-)

And don't tell me anything - I've seen it all when I was at the university. You cannot imagine what stange ideas some students have about form and content... the best word processor could not help them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Good work Microsoft
by Doc Pain on Fri 4th Jan 2008 15:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Good work Microsoft"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"DocPain: First of all referring Microsoft as MICROS~1 etc shows your bias against them so your views really hold much lower credibility."

Dear CrazyDude1, I always refer to them as MICROS~1 because it's kind of my individual style here at OSNews. This shows bias? Hmmm... maybe, but I tend to say I'm usually not interested in them at all because I don't use their products and I've never seen any need for them. On the other hand, I'm working in the IT sector so I know about problems others have with MICROS~1 products, I do head many complains. Maybe you do so, too. I think it's better to use MICROS~1 instead of screaming around "this shitty company produces bloaded malware to spread viruses and spam and dumbes down the users everywhere they can, abusing their monopoly" or similar things. My critics are not that harsh.

What does it say about my credibility? I invite you to have a look at my profile, and maybe you like to compare it to yours. I think this does say more than my use of MICROS~1.

Still I'm interested in what's going on in the region of commercial software, especially if they are made for Mac OS X, one of my favourite OS platforms, right next to UNIX. While "Office:mac"

Please note the fine difference between form and content. Read the content of my post attentively and don't care about the use MICROS~1, extend it to the name of your favourite company. :-)

"As far as looks of the document is concerned, my point is that if you make the exact same document in Word 2003 and then in Word 2007 (i.e. by doing the same things like same headings, same title etc), the document word 2007 produces is far better due to it's ability to do better layout, much more aesthetic fonts etc."

That's an interesting point. I applaud the use of aesthetic fonts (instead of the ones that are usually used on"Windows"). I hope the ability to do layout as it is intended to do will enable users to easily adopt to the concept of having a logically structured document.

Additionally, I've seen users creating two-column text first typing the left column up to the half width of the page, then going back to the first line, appending some spaces, and started typing the right column up to the page width. Can you imagine how crappy this must have looked, especially if the font face or font size needed to be changed? :-)

"As a side note, Open office produces really crappy looking documents."

Could you please explain how you've come to this opinion? As far as I know, the only one creating crappy documents is the user, and the best word processor cannot help a user who intendedly abuses the means provided by this application. You can produce crappy looking documents with any word processor if you try hard enough.

I've used OpenOffice in a multi-OS setting and I've never had any of such issues. But maybe it's up to who uses OpenOffice (the same way as who uses any tool - properly or not).

Maybe you will explain what you do understand by "crappy looking documents", defective fonts, distroted layout, formatting incompatibilities?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Good work Microsoft
by Chicken Blood on Fri 4th Jan 2008 17:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Good work Microsoft"
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21


I think it's better to use MICROS~1 instead of screaming around "this shitty company produces bloaded malware to spread viruses and spam and dumbes down the users everywhere they can, abusing their monopoly" or similar things. My critics are not that harsh.


There is another option. You could just say 'Microsoft' or 'MS' that would be the mature way to critique.

Unfortunately MICROS~1 is easily globbed with other terms used by ad-hominem simpletons like the following:

Microsoft
Microsoft
Winblows
Linsucks
Mactards

...etc, etc.

Edited 2008-01-04 17:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1