ActiveWin reviews Office 2007 beta 1, and concludes: “It’s an innovative interface yes, but will the benefits outweigh the changes? That’s for users to decide. Yes this early code does have glitches and performance issues left to be ironed out; right now the focus is on reliability and stability. The BETA 2 release should provide us with an early glimpse of what’s in store in the final product. My personal say is getting used to interface should not be a problem for many since the familiar tools are organized in ways that makes it convenient for the user, and new tools make the interface more intelligent and more aware of what the user is doing, presenting the right tools for the task at hand.”
I’m the IT Director of a pretty large company, and we’re going to be faced with the decision of whether to rollout new PCs with a new image with the new version of Office like we did with Office 2003, or whatever we want to downgrade new PCs back to Office 2003.
Anyone else have some thoughts on how they’re going to tackle this? We haven’t really decided yet.
Our IT department is going to stick with 2003 even on new PCs, for the next year or so. My department’s somewhat independent from IT, however, and I plan to bump all our machines up to Office 2007 and Vista early in 2007.
We won’t be moving our users to this new version of Office right away. Heck, we are still migrating some (not many) of our users from Office 2000 and 2002 to Office 2003!
We will most likely pick a few areas on our campus to upgrade a little at a time. It will have to wait until my support staff becomes familiar enough with the new version so that they will be able to answer the many questions they will be receiving.
We don’t order new machines with Office pre-installed. So, we can choose to migrate whenever we feel it is appropriate.
I will say this: Previous upgrades of Office had a minimal training curve, i.e. you could usually just throw a new upgrade in front of a user and it was similar enough to previous versions that they could hit the ground running with minimal training required. Office 2007 (for the average user at least) won’t be as trivial of an upgrade due to the completely new UI. I’ve been running the pre-release for months now and still get caught up trying to find specific commands in Word.
In short, I believe this round of Office upgrades will also require some decent end user training as well, so that definitely needs to be factored into cost. I also believe that the new UI will ultimately lead to increases in productivity though; it’s much more visual and it’s easier to remember where stuff is once you find it.
In short, I believe this round of Office upgrades will also require some decent end user training as well, so that definitely needs to be factored into cost.
Yeah and don’t just put a couple of tutorials on the intranet. I hate it when companies do that. People either don’t read them or don’t understand them and tech-savvy collegues end up doing tech support on the side.
And I’m no IT director (thank god) but if your version is still supported and fits your needs why go to the extra expense in both license fees and manhours ? I’d just set up a little pilot project so you’re well tested and prepared by the time you *have to* switch.
I agree, I work for a company that tends to roll out new versions of it software and all we have is a few guides on the intranet. Better communication is required if the company is not to lose many manhours.
The company uses Open office 1 for 400 branches and Microsoft office for head office.
This best idear would be to lose Microsoft office for most of the company and only the departments that need access or excel have open office.
In short, I believe this round of Office upgrades will also require some decent end user training as well, so that definitely needs to be factored into cost. I also believe that the new UI will ultimately lead to increases in productivity though; it’s much more visual and it’s easier to remember where stuff is once you find it.
I wish I had the link to the rationale behind the new Office interface; it went into great depth on the fact that they would talk to customers and ask them what the want; what they found is that customers wanted, in they way of features, were actually already there, in the application – the fact that it was hidden behind half a dozen menus with cryptic terminology made the end user assume that the feature didn’t exist.
If you look further back in interviews with a executive at Microsoft (might have been Bill Gates); he was talking about the move to more tasked based applications, which seems to be the situation, for example with Windows Media Player, with Office, they appear to have embraced that idea and extended it further to make it applicable a more complex application.
At first I was very skeptical hearing about all the R&D they were spending, but it appears that alot of it is finally comeing through in their products and new ways of approaching problems out there; what ever the case, it’ll be interesting to see where beta 2 takes us.
Personally, if I were you, I would wait till Vista comes out, plus and year, purchase the two together and use that as a leveraging tool when dealing with Microsoft.
HOWEVER, with that being said, if you’re under the old select licencing/’software assurance’; then one would wonder why you haven’t upgraded to Windows XP Professional yet give its part of the whole bundle of software they provide as part of your subscription.
Don’t forget the msft is always late with it’s actual releases, and is often very late. Office-2007 may not come out until well into 2008.
I suspect that office-2007 will be very compatible with office-2003. It may not hurt to have half your staff on office-2003, and the other half on office-2007.
I wonder why reviewers insist on using JPEG for desktop screen shots. There are so many artifacts in colour rendering because of the compression algorithm that it’s not even funny.
That said, while I am a fan of some of the simpler looking menu structures (and the gorgeous translucency in the graphs), I am not a fan of the ample usage of gradients everywhere. People keep chiding GNU/Linux for not using a consistent graphical toolkit (leading to much of the visual inconsistencies across the desktop), and then we have this product from the market leader. It seems to stand out from the rest of the environment (in a jarring way), and I don’t find that pleasant.
Maybe, with all of Vista’s bells and whistles turned on, it will look more “at home”.
Yeah with the translucency and the rulers etc it seems they are incorporating some of the best features of Office for the Mac.
Hope the Mac Business unit nick some of the cool stuff back into the Mac version
People keep chiding GNU/Linux for not using a consistent graphical toolkit (leading to much of the visual inconsistencies across the desktop), and then we have this product from the market leader.
Every operating system is guilty of it. Mac OS X has 3 native user interfaces and all of the X11 ones for the X11 programs. Windows has updated and refined their interface over the years and the changes didn’t take affect to old programs. Also, on Windows, you find that a lot of software authors, such as Microsoft, always use their own toolkits and GUIs that are inconsistant with everything else in the operating system. For example, look at a default install of Windows… major components like Windows Media Player don’t use the same toolkit. When you start to get other Microsoft programs or even worse, third party programs, they are everywhere, such as Office that you mentioned, Trillian, Winamp, etc. At least in Linux, when you stick to a desktop environment and its programs, they will all be consistant. All the gnome music players use the native UI elements. The movie players do the same. The instant messengers do the same, etc. The problem is less true in Linux then if you stay using Gnome2 or KDE3 programs and don’t try to mix them.
…will the benefits outweigh the changes…
So, there _were_ benefits to Office, but now there are changes that are not good? The writer may not have intended to say this but I happen to agree with this anyway.
The latest Office is basically an interface downgrade coupled with further attempts to keep people away from free alternatives. <Insert raspberry sound here>.
Floyd
http://www.just-think-it.com
Of course they want to keep people away from alternatives, they are trying to sell a product!
I think the interface is actually a big improvement. There is a slight learning curve, but I think time will prove it’s a good move.
I’m the IT Director of a pretty large company, and we’re going to be faced with the decision of whether to rollout new PCs with a new image with the new version of Office like we did with Office 2003, or whatever we want to downgrade new PCs back to Office 2003.
It sounds like you’re contemplating both hardware and software upgrades simply because a new version of a product will be available.
You might want to survey your employees and actually determine if the new features will actually be needed.
Three years ago we surveyed our employees and discovered that OpenOffice (0.9x) was a suitable replacement for Microsoft Office 2000, simply because people weren’t using the additional features offered by Office.
The migration:
– OO along side MS Office, on Windows
– OO without MS Office, on Windows
– OO 2 on Linux
Today we’re running Ubuntu on the desktop with Office Office 2, using the same hardware we purchased in 2001.
With linux more than peppy on 1+Ghz hardware, the only physical upgrades have be at the human iterface level: 19″ LCD screens, optical wheel mice, ergonomic keyboards and chairs.
The savings in software license fees and getting off the upgrade treadmill have been substantial to the say the least.
This had a nice side effect of unloading the other corporate-support barnacles: Symantec, Vertitas, etc.. which we’ve replaced with free equivalents such as rsnapshot, clamv, dspam, etc.
Ask yourself: how much money have you saved your company today?
It sounds like you’re contemplating both hardware and software upgrades simply because a new version of a product will be available.
Not at all. We regularly refresh our hardware when it benefits us, and it does. And we are currently growing quickly, and therefore need additional hardware. I thik the question stands – as long as we buy licenses for Office with each PC/laptop purcahse, we are entitled to start upgrading immediately. But I doubt we will, and wanted to see what other people were doing.
One has to ask, how many people work for your company… All very nice giving examples of how much cheaper Linux/OpenOffice.org is, but its pretty baseless when you give no actual head count.
Sure, Linux does have its place, but lets not try to get carried away, as it seems if the only application your office requires is OpenOffice.org, its pretty clear that the organisation must, at max, only have around 50 people working for it; hardly what I would call ‘big fry’ that Microsoft concerned about.
When I start seeing government departments and large businesses like Telecom (6,000 employees) in New Zealand start using OpenOffice.org/Linux as an alternative, then I think Microsoft will worry, but until then, Microsoft has a strangle hold, and their products keep going from strength to strength.
Why talk companies? There’s entire countries switching to linux, and making it part of law to utilize opensource software in their operations.
Who are……
Lip service and tacky anti-Americanism don’t count as migration; sooner or later in Germany (that state that decided to move), the citizens will start to ask for accountability, and as to why money is being sunk into a project that seems to be an on going bottomless pit of money request each year.
I still see businesses and countries still using Windows and Office; the day I start seeing wide spread deployment in the US Public service, for more than POS machines at the local post office will be the day that you can truely say Linux/OO.org/OSS has arrived.
There’s a whole lot here that you’re not telling us. You say you migrated from Windows and MS Office to Ubuntu and OpenOffice 2. Everything went smooth, yes? Do your support department think that as well? No extra costs there I suppose?
Then you mention that you run 2001 hardware. Nothing wrong with that but it hasn’t much to do with the migration. In fact, if you still would be running windows, those older hardware would be performing better than with ubuntu and oo2.
And you replaced shrink wrapped products with such easy to use programs such as rsnapshot, clamv, dspam, etc. How are all those fine command line programs supported? Ok, no support, so you have to pay for your own unix admins? And save money at the same time!
Ask yourself: are you being completely honest here?
This new interface sure is neat, and may be more convenient than the past one; but the real question is weather there is in fact any room for significant improvement in the office suite realm.
The only things I can think of are version control (advanced to the level of that used for source code) and electronic archival (which would require a global full-text search functionality, respecting permissions). I haven’t read the article in detail, but it doesn’t seem this version is exploring either of these possibilities, nor anything else “truly” innovative.
Just because the article doesn’t cover it, doesn’t mean there isn’t anything innovative.
The interface is actually innovative in itself. You may not like it much, but innovation is not about what people like.
Some of the best tools and products out there are the ones that have a steeper learning curve. But in the end, you’re more productive once you learn. vi is a good example of this.
Just because the article doesn’t cover it, doesn’t mean there isn’t anything innovative. The interface is actually innovative in itself. You may not like it much, but innovation is not about what people like. Some of the best tools and products out there are the ones that have a steeper learning curve. But in the end, you’re more productive once you learn. vi is a good example of this.
Innovation MUST BE about what adopters like, or they won’t adopt it (unless forced to).
vi is a superb example of an awful interface. *nix types that cite vi as being a great product are what holds *nix back. Or I could ask the question “Why is it that DOS is bad but vi is good?” Doesn’t make sense really. DOS in its own way is just as powerful and cryptic as vi — and neither ultimately triumphed. DOS & vi have a certain utility and place, but are not marvels of innovation.
Innovation is a new product that triumphs. Beta was better but VHS was the innovation that triumphed.
vi may be great, for a machine, but the vast majority of humans do not want it. Similarly the vast majority of humans do not want a new interface unless it clearly offers something they need. Since hundreds of millions of users already know the Office interface, a new one offers nothing to them. Nada, zip, zilch.
A new interface only offers something, maybe, perhaps, to new users. That is once everyone in the pipeline, from teachers to book writers to IT staffers learns the new system. All of which adds up to huge costs for, ah, no gain.
I switched to a gui from DOS not because DOS was not powerful. In fact I still use DOS, constantly. I now also use a GUI because with a GUI (1) I can do multiple things at once (yes, yes, *nix got this one right), (2) the MS GUI has a more consistent interface making new apps easier to learn to use, (3) the G in GUI.
The only correct statement you made above is:
Some of the best tools and products out there are the ones that have a steeper learning curve. But in the end, you’re more productive once you learn.
Your conclusion about vi is a mistake. The best “steep learning curve” products are good because of their power/scope and _despite_ their difficulty of use not because of it.
When difficulty of use is a virtue, vi is king.
When power & scope are virtues, amalgams like (DOS + Windows) or (*nix cmd prompt + vi + perl + … + *nix GUI) are king.
vi is the hammer that too many *nix nerds try to pound non *nix users with.
Floyd <– not a nail
http://www.just-think-it.com
Um… no. Innovation is not no longer innovation because adopters don’t like it. Innovation is innovation no matter how well people react to it.
I’m not a nix type, at all, and I never said vi is a great product. All I said is that once you get past the initial steep learning curve, you will be a lot more productive. I’m not a very big unix guy at all, but the more I learn vi, the more I appreciate it. However, I still tend to use other tools to edit most of my code. But for some things, vi can’t be beat, to me.
And of course a GUI is almost always *better*. There is no doubt about that. The only reason I used *vi* is because its a good example of an app that is relatively simple, but has a steep learning curve before someone can really become productive with it.
The rest of what you say, I mostly agree with. However, I’m far from a *nix nerd (I’m a windows nerd actually), I use vi[m] only a portion of the time, and I think you don’t truly appreciate vi[m] because you haven’t taken the time to learn it. It’s not the be-all end-all like some thing it is, but it’s a powerful tool to add to your arsenal if you know it and know when to use it.
“Innovation MUST BE about what adopters like, or they won’t adopt it (unless forced to). ”
What people already know is actually the opposite of innovation. Innovation is something new.
Your entire argument is nonsensical. DOS is a rather poorly designed batch operating system while vi[1] is a text editor.
You also seem confused about the difference between text mode interfaces and GUI’s. Vi is not a command line program simply because it can run in a text mode terminal. It is an interactive full screen program with many of the same features of any other text editor (graphical or not). The fact that vim[2] has a graphics mode interface makes this a rather moot issue.
The ability to multitask is not an intrinsic property of a GUI. Most any UNIX like system has virtual terminals, and let us not forget GNU screen which allows terminal multiplexing. Further, terminal emulators can be run inside of a graphics mode interface. In fact, a common usage of X11 servers is simply to run multiple xterms for the multitasking function. This brings us to the myth of the GUI.
Both technical and non-technical folks put forth the false dicotomy that one either must have a GUI or a command line. The two are not mutually exclusive. This myth seems to have stemmed from the popularity of the WIMP interface whereby the mouse has become the dominate input method and command lines are entirely absent or neglected. Of course, this is the reason why new comers to UNIX systems believe that it is some how backwards. UNIX users do not subscribe to the WIMP ideal[3] but rather keep the command interpreter and utilize the graphics mode server (X11) to leverage the greater output capabilities that it affords.
The important thing to realize is that one could write an application in a graphics mode environment and have it behave in every way that a full screen program would in a text mode environment and still leverage the output flexibility of the former. One does not need menus, icons and buttons to have a GUI. These symbolic devices simply emulate commands. The GUI as a concept is ill defined and nebulous.
It is also important to realize that usability does not imply a low learning curve. Vim (or vi) are not great because they are hard to learn. They are great because they are flexable and efficient. The fact that is difficult to use (debatable) at first is a side effect.
To end, I would like to point out that vi and vim are not the only text editors available on UNIX like systems. Emacs is another editor that is commonly used. In fact, there is still unrest between vi and emacs users. Which of the two are superior is still up in the air and I, quite frankly, don’t care. The list doesn’t stop there, either, for there are many more editors to choose from including the WIMP variety you cherrish so intensely.
[1] Linux systems usually symlink vi to vim.
[2] Vim is an improved (more features) rewrite of vi.
[3] KDE and GNOME provide a WIMP style interface which ultimately shows that attacks on UNIX are usually attacks on a particular UI. UNIX does not enforce UI policy nor does X11.
Edited 2006-02-27 09:15
Your entire argument is nonsensical. DOS is a rather poorly designed batch operating system while vi[1] is a text editor.
My point was that both are cryptic/hard to use, yet powerful. And both are.
You also seem confused about the difference between text mode interfaces and GUI’s.
Actually, you are.
Vi is not a command line program simply because…
It doesn’t matter WHY it is, it just is.
it can run in a text mode terminal. It is an interactive full screen program with many of the same features of any other text editor (graphical or not).
So far from the truth as to be laughable. “with many of the same features”??? Yeah, if you type like a perl script.
The fact that vim[2] has a graphics mode interface makes this a rather moot issue.
Actually it makes your mention of vim irrelevant.
The ability to multitask is not an intrinsic property of a GUI…and 10 more lines of a rant that indicates you obviously misread my post
As I said in my original post, *nix “got this right” — i.e. figured out how to do multiple things at once in a non-GUI.
Both technical and non-technical folks put forth the false dicotomy that one either must have a GUI or a command line…and 10 more lines on this same note
Another misreading of what I said. I in fact made the point you are trying to make. That good systems involve the combination of both cmd prompts + GUIs. No offense but maybe English is not your first language.
It is also important to realize that usability does not imply a low learning curve.
A point at once obvious, yet surprisingly irrelevant to this entire thread.
Vim (or vi) are not great because they are hard to learn. They are great because they are flexable and efficient. The fact that is difficult to use (debatable) at first is a side effect.
Ahem, my original comment and most comments that responded to it were about program interfaces. It is obvious why vi sucks, yet has utility. I and several others have already commented on this. Yet you seem to have adopted a tone of the great professor telling me/us all what we have already said. Next time try responding to something within 48 hours of the original postings.
To end, I would like to point out that vi and vim are not the only text editors available on UNIX like systems. Emacs is another editor that is commonly used. In fact, there is still unrest between vi and emacs users. Which of the two are superior is still up in the air and I, quite frankly, don’t care. The list doesn’t stop there, either, for there are many more editors to choose from including the WIMP variety you cherrish so intensely.
More complete irrelevance.
vi was cited for its bad interface. Office 2007 is changing only its interface (basically) and I am saying that anyone switching to it for this reason alone is a fool.
Linux systems usually symlink vi to vim.
This is like Mac users screaming “the Mac ships with a two button mouse!!!” Yes, NOW it does, after almost exactly 20 years of stupidity. How many hundreds of thousands of users over the decades — decades — have been tortured by vi? May they rest in peace.
Vim is an improved (more features) rewrite of vi.
Not relevant. Halfway through the DOS lifecycle edlin was updated to Edit (a dumbed down qbasic). Who cares? Who is talking about this?
KDE and GNOME provide a WIMP style interface which ultimately shows that attacks on UNIX are usually attacks on a particular UI. UNIX does not enforce UI policy nor does X11.
Since this never was about attacking unix, I offer to pay the first $10 toward your “learning to read English” class.
Floyd
http://www.just-think-it.com
My point was that both are cryptic/hard to use, yet powerful. And both are.
Your analogy is erroneous… DOS is not powerful.
For OpenOffice to implement these functionality so that I can use the same on my desktop.
The interface sure looks very good, surely the toolbars look handy.
The features I like in particular
1) New (wow) Page Layout.
2) Picture, IGX Graphics, Chart and Drawing tools.
3) References, these are a big add-on and will help people relate with tex.
4) Side-by-side preview.
5) Excellent integration between all Office components like Excel and Outlook.
Jumping to see these features in OO.
I really hope office has support for reading & writing ODF.
Anyways, I am sure glad Apple was able to see leaked versions of this office several years ago so iTunes would have the same great brushed metal look.
“I really hope office has support for reading & writing ODF. ”
I don’t. From the angle I see it in, if MS Office supports ODF, then there would be no reason at all for anyone I know, friend or family, to make a switch from MS Office to OOo. That could cause a big blow to OOo.
* Face it.. no one i know paid or ever pays for office.. so cost is not an issue.
* everyone’s used to MS office’s interface and features, of which in OOo might be different, or lacking.
* the issue of “if it does what i want it to do, then why switch” also comes in here, and not only the other way round.
* It’s stable (relatively enough). Office 2k3 atleast…
* I’m not sure about OOo in windows, but another point is MS OFfice’s integration with other applications (outlook, explorer, etc..)
I’m interested in seing the opposite view to this post btw. Keep ’em coming.
Edited 2006-02-26 18:56
Yes, but a huge complaint I get when I tell people to use OpenOffice is that the document their friend sent them doesn’t work, and it produces broken files as their friends can’t open their documents. If Microsoft Office opened ODF files, thats one problem solved. If it defaulted to it, thats another. Then people wouldn’t have a reason to stick with Microsoft Office and it would allow the adaption from Windows much faster. Thats also the reason why you WON’T see ODF support.
I really hope office has support for reading & writing ODF.
Why? it doesn’t support that, but you can save it to the native XML format which Office 2007 will use, export it to XPS (Microsofts attempt at a PDF alternative) and PDF – its all good.
What is stopping OpenOffice.org from implementing Microsofts XML format using the publicly available DTD’s …. AH! thats right, they cut their nose off to spite their face when they moved to GPL <slaps head> had they gone with CDDL, they would never have had that problem.
>>I really hope office has support for reading & writing ODF.<<
>Why? it doesn’t support that, but you can save it to the native XML format which Office 2007 will use, export it to XPS (Microsofts attempt at a PDF alternative) and PDF – its all good. <
OpenDocument is the standard, MS Office XML isn’t.
XPS is also very much NOT a standard.
If you use either of those, not only do you lock yourself in to Microsoft’s expensive subscription bloatware, but you potentially lock your customers out of doing buisness with you.
Stay away from Office 2007, enjoy compatibility with most of the world by so doing, and save yourself an absolute fortune in the process.
Edited 2006-02-27 11:04
Stay away from Office 2007, enjoy compatibility with most of the world by so doing, and save yourself an absolute fortune in the process.
Excuse me; 90-95% of the world run Office; its OpenOffice.org that is locking themselves out of the rest of the world by refusing to adequately support Microsofts native Doc format, and their future XML format.
Maybe when the Microsoft bashing stops, and the customer listening happens in the opensource community; the market share might actually move above a fart rather than what we see now.
I didn’t read the article. I sort of couldn’t find the energy to do it.
Today, the trend seam to be that more and more of the information in most companies are handled by much simpler tools such as e-mail and web interfaces. Putting documents printed nicely formatted on paper in binders on a shelf, that so far have been the most common use of office suits, belongs to the past.
Even the current current shipping version of MS-Office is overkill. Why would somebody waste money on an upgrade. In fact many organizations doesn’t even run the latest version today. There are even people that still runs Office 97.
This means that people who upgrade will likely face compatibility problems if they try to communicate with customers using the new MS-Office formats.
The mantra from the firefox guys, is that the browser should be transperent when browsing the web. I realise that word processing, spreadsheets etc are more UI intensive, but, Office 12 just seems to get in the way. It appears to be clumsy, unfamiliar, and really demanding to ‘interface with’.
Why not simply drop these new power features into the existing UI? It would require less of a learning curve, perhaps reducing the switching costs for some users, and keep existing users happy. More training courses please?
While I do believe that Office is the best productivity suite out there, this seems a change more for ‘change’s sake.’
Simple: The existing UI requires classes to learn. They’re shooting for something slightly less un-intuitive.
I say bravo to Microsoft for getting rid of all those obnoxious toolbars that all look the same and menus that are horridly organized and too big to work with.
Go to seperation of draft and typesetting and you’ll have completely fixed that silly WYSIWYG document editor problem!
When I saw how the interface was going to be a few months ago I was actually getting excited because all the tools would be immediately available in the toolbar. It’s very much like Adobe InDesign in that way:
http://www.ultrasw.com/alcock/tcs/journal/RansomNote.jpg
Problem is, with this Office 12, there is nothing ‘new’ in regards to regular text editing that couldn’t be found in the toolbar before:
http://www.activewin.com/reviews/previews/office12/Views.JPG
As it is, you can easily change the font-size, font, justification, bulleting, paragraph indenting, colors, font styles and I believe line spacing but I don’t have it open in front of me to check. When you look at that screenshot I think the only two new things are making the font bigger/smaller and paragraph borders that are immediately accessible.
Look back on the InDesign screenshot. What I really want is more tools to edit specific elements on my page like specific tilting and font spacing without much hassle. Is that what I’m going to get? Granted OOo doesn’t do this well either, it offers basic formatting which makes it passible to make simple documents. But whoever offers these features is a winner.. maybe.
Now the next really serious problem to me is the ‘skin’. If it becomes anything like windows media player has I want to be able to disable that skin and you know, have it kind of look like the rest of the operating system? Is that too much to ask? Wasn’t microsoft the ones that preach on consistency? I could be wrong though.
What am I missing?
1. It’s nice that they will export to .pdf eh.. but I don’t like how they won’t export to .odf. And if they can’t open .odf then I can’t really use it because people send me files in that format and I’m gathering quite a collection of them myself. It’s like how I can’t use Windows Media Player because it wont open my .ogg or .flac files or play my favourite shoutcast streams. [sarcasm]I suppose it’s the cost and licensing issues for them.[/end sarcasm]
2. The quick menu bar only seems to make sense to have in word and powerpoint, in excel it takes up too much space for my liking by the looks of it.
*sighs* It is still beta 1 but I hope things shape up. There are some nice features like easier ways to cite things. But overall it’s a miss that will probably make me stick with Open Office, despite it’s large startup times.
PS. This is my first post on OS NEWS!!!
Edited 2006-02-27 01:12
“XPS provides some of the characteristics of PDF, but utilizes the web browser for viewing information.”
If they could make it so that you don’t need IE7 or IE6 for the viewing information that would be great. Maybe firefox would work? Otherwise this is just another write-off for me.
It’s the difference of needing other applications to run certain functions and using other applications to enhance certain functions..
The next thing is the IGX type functionality. Simply put, I like this a lot.
Also knowing that I’ll have to use something else on different OS’s is not very pleasant. Again, we’ll see how things shape up but with the way things are now I don’t think it’ll be worthy of an upgrade. Even to corperate environments.
Where is Beta 1 on MSDN? I hope Beta2 will be there.
O12-B1 was not seeded to many testers.
It looks good so far, however, Outlook looks terribly out of place with the current GUI – with that being said, its interesting where they’re taking the application suite.
Not only are they giveing them a face lift, making it easier to access the features most people never knew existed, they’re also adding new software titles to the bundle; so all its good.
With that being said, I think for most people, they’ll do what I did, upgrade the computer, get Vista and Office all in one hit at the OEM discounted price – which is a good thing(tm)
What I am wondering, however is this; with Office 2007/12, if they’re completely re-tweaking the whole interface, I would assume that they would use Winforms that comes with .NET 2.0 or what ever WinFX provides as a replacement for the current spaghetti of widget library’s included with Windows.
I must say I really look forward to Office 2k7. For me, who was hoping on OOo, must now admit the defeat. Sure, I’ll keep using OOo at home because of the pricing, but in the office price is fair enough.
Look at the stuff in there, whatever you produce has the potential of looking better than ever before. Just have a look at those Pies in the Excel part of the review. That looks simply brilliant.
Now you can’t do stuff like that with the competitors…
Sure, it’ll be a learning curve, just like it was to start biking when I was little, or swimming. The learning curve I mind not. The fact of going to a customer, making a presentation in OOo or MSO2k3 while one of my competitors make something sweet in 2k7 is the real problem here. Because if it’s a power user doing it, it will look better. And what is it that counts in the end? The tricky interface or the output it produces?
It is a pity it is such a wasted effort.
MS Office 2007 will be unusable to me … it doesn’t support OpenDocument at all.
Very poor.
“Excuse me; 90-95% of the world run Office; its OpenOffice.org that is locking themselves out of the rest of the world by refusing to adequately support Microsofts native Doc format, and their future XML format. ”
Show them where the reference documents are, and I’m sure they’ll comply.
I cannot see any reason for 95% oy any organisation going beyond Office 2000 or Office 97 except where they are locked into a licence treadmill that they can’t get off. Fools to themselves if they are locked in.
I cannot see any reason for 95% oy any organisation going beyond Office 2000 or Office 97 except where they are locked into a licence treadmill that they can’t get off. Fools to themselves if they are locked in.
Hence the dilemma Microsoft will have; can Microsoft convince these customers to upgrade? if the customers are happy with their current software; can Microsoft offer them a discount thats too good to refuse, but end up in the short term making a lower profit off these customers?
As for being fools? how is it any more foolish than moving to a office suite that lacks the features which their business relies on? if it were a clean transition with no features lost, and configuration maintained, then sure, move to what ever the competition has to offer; but the simple fact of the matter is that the situation is the competition is deficent in delivering what customers want – not because Microsoft is superior, but because the competition would rather do a Microsoft bash-a-thon that sitting down and saying, “hey, these are some f*cking good ideas, lets implement then and make them even better!”.
Edited 2006-02-28 07:59