Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jul 2012 22:24 UTC
Features, Office Microsoft has released a consumer preview for Office 2013. Highlighting the age-old internal tug-of-war between the Office and Windows divisions within Microsoft, it's just a desktop application, no Metro, and the only nod to that whole touch/tablet-thing is a special mode that does very little. So, Windows 8 is just around the corner, and still not a single serious Metro application. Not even Microsoft's own flagship suite - heck, not even a single application within that suite - could be adapted to Metro in time. Serious vote of confidence from the Office division there.
Thread beginning with comment 527093
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Good thing
by avgalen on Tue 17th Jul 2012 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Good thing"
avgalen
Member since:
2010-09-23

http://sharepoint.microsoft.com, also known as Microsoft Office SharePoint Server. It does centralized, webaccessible storage with built-in version control and workflow (among soooo many other things). It even has a free version called Windows SharePoint Services and a subscription based version called Office 365 / SharePoint Online.

This is not 1997 anymore.

(and for dropbox (home) they have skydrive)

Edited 2012-07-17 11:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Good thing
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 17th Jul 2012 14:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Good thing"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

It even has a free version called Windows SharePoint Services and a subscription based version called Office 365 / SharePoint Online.


Slightly OT: Office 365 can kiss the darkest part of my white ass. Had to do some work with it recently for a client and it's been probably a decade since I've encountered such a half-assed, confusing, badly organized web-based control panel. I certainly expected that the company who built the software could build a more usable online service around it... and it didn't help that most of the documentation falls into two categories: either there's no documentation available, or there's multiple pieces of documentation that contradict each other.

Oh, and while I'm ranting about terribly-implemented online services, "youtube-direct" can kiss my ass too. Just to be able to accept video uploads through your own site, you need the Java SDK, a copy of eclipse, some Google-specific plugins, and then you need to use all of those to build & deploy an application to Google's "app engine". Oh, but the plugins you need aren't compatible with the current release of Eclipse, so you need to hunt down an old version... and even then, I never managed to get the damn thing working (unless you define "working" as "producing dozens of semi-coherent error messages").

Would it really be that hard for them to just give you some JS/iframe code to embed the uploader? Or hell, even just a pre-built version of the "app" that could be deployed after a little editing of the config file, without having to screw around with Eclipse. Seriously, I probably could have built a self-hosted setup for uploading videos in less time than I spent fighting with YT-direct...

Reply Parent Score: 3