Submitted by Microsoft Australia’s Office chief today delivered a frank retrospective on how badly bloated Office had become over the years. Speaking at a briefing to journalists about Windows Vista and Office 2007, Wilkinson launched into a lengthy and frank retrospective on how Office came to be as bloated as it is today. “Little point changes to our user interface design weren’t helping the problem. The real problem was the application had increased too much in complexity.”
Let me summarize:
Office is bloated, but the next version won’t be. You should pay us to upgrade to that.
Yep, flog a platform for all the money it’s worth, bragging about it all the way to the bank, and then badmouth people into abandoning it for your new, shiny, flawless platform that you’re sure won’t ever develop the same problem…
Hrmmmm, the force is strong in this one. You have much wisdom and great understanding of the software business. You will go far.
Fantastic. In this case however, they are telling the truth, though, yes, trying to sell their new software. But at least they aren’t lying out their ass about it. Office was becoming increasing complex — and “bloated” — in the interface, and the new version truly addresses this issue.
But hey, people need something to bitch about, so I’ll leave you be.
Office was becoming increasing complex — and “bloated” — in the interface, and the new version truly addresses this issue.
It truly addresses this issue, does it? Wow. Looks like you’re drinking what Tony Wilkinson’s been drinking.
But hey, people need something to bitch about, so I’ll leave you be.
It’s Microsoft saying it.
Yes, it does address it. Instead of just being a cheap hack, they actually sat down and tried to make the interface less complex and make more sense. That, my friend, is truly addressing the issue.
There’s no kool-aid here, just some common sense.
Yes, it does address it. Instead of just being a cheap hack, they actually sat down and tried to make the interface less complex and make more sense.
I tend to disagree: I don’t think the interface looks less complex. It’s…different, which means that lots of people simply won’t switch to it, including companies who will see it as an unnecessary expense (including training costs).
I myself see no reason to upgrade from Office XP. I’ll still give the new one a try, if Codeweavers supports it eventually on Linux.
I didn’t say looks less complex, but is less complex, and that it is.
I didn’t say looks less complex, but is less complex, and that it is.
How so? More precisely, what was so complex about, say Word XP?
It’s a lot harder to find what you’re looking for in XP or 2003. I use 2007 and 2003 side by side here at work, and it’s much easier to find anything in 2007. It’s easier to accomplish a lot of things like working with tables because of the context ribbons as well, that don’t get in your way.
But in this case he’s right: Office as it is today is a nightmare to use, so is OpenOffice and those others who mock office.
I don’t know if 2007 will really be revolutionary or simply bloated but prettier, but he’s right that Office as it is today requires a lot of time to get used to.
And it’s not just the menus and toolbars (which you have to customize to make them useful). It’s the way the editing works too: Making complex lists is so painful that you keep saying “stop trying to predict my thinking and just do what I type” over and over! I hope they’ve improved upon things like that. I won’t suggest how, if I could I’d be writing patches to OO to fix it, but I know enough to know I waste time fighting it and so have several other people I know.
Making complex lists is so painful that you keep saying “stop trying to predict my thinking and just do what I type” over and over!
++
If you know HTML, it’s often less hassle to just code the lists by hand and then import then into Word.
I’m as cynical (if not more so) as the next guy. But I think that the new Office UI is ‘a good thing’ and I don’t begrudge Microsoft the marketing opportunities that it offers.
After all the first step is to admit that you have a problem, nice to see them take it.
Could a brightly colored sticker, Now %23 Less Bloated!, brighten sales as well as shrinkwrap?
That would be misleading. It’s at least 63% less bloated.
WTF you anti-microsoft linux zealot. It’s clearly 64% less bloated. Take your goggles off and stop spreading FUD!!
At last!
Bill G said the other day that Windows has too much code and too many developers.
Will they now add Visual Studio and SBS and Win 2003 and…(other bloated products)… to the list?
At least this helps us explain to clients why Windows based servers/PC’s keep getting infected and keep crashing.
I don’t think features and code are being removed from Office. So by that measure, it’s not getting any less “bloated”.
On the other hand, what does the amount of code matter if you’re not running it? Office apps load up pretty quickly since they seem to delay-load everything they can and therefore don’t actually waste time getting the code into memory until it’s being used.
The new UI is startlingly different from the old one, and it seems to do a good job of filtering the many features based on task. When you have an app as big as MSWord, being totally modeless may be a disadvantage and the modality of the new interface probably will make it easier to deal with. (How many times do you have to do a mail merge at the same time as you’re making a diagram? Why should both features be equally accessible when you’re doing one task or the other?).
Complaints about bloat strike me as a facile argument used by people who support software that is less featured. It makes sense to say something is slow or insecure because it has to load all the code for all of its features. On the other hand, if proper efforts are taken to delay-load everything and turn off features when they’re not being used, then having a lot of code is a plus and not a minus.
Complaints about bloat strike me as a facile argument used by people who support software that is less featured. It makes sense to say something is slow or insecure because it has to load all the code for all of its features. On the other hand, if proper efforts are taken to delay-load everything and turn off features when they’re not being used, then having a lot of code is a plus and not a minus.
I agree. By all accounts, MS has done a reasonably good (not perfect) job of keeping boot times and general perf under control — despite any feature bloating. It amuses me when OO users sputter, “buh-Windows is preloading DLLs that it will need to use later on!” As if that were a bad thing. Clearly, MS has identified the perf bottlenecks and tried to address them in a way that doesn’t involve compromising the feature set of the app. Because, regardless of whether YOU find a particular feature useful or useless, there will be ten others who disagree with you. OO advocates would have us all believe that having reduced functionality is a good thing — even if you find that functionality useful.
“buh-Windows is preloading DLLs that it will need to use later on!”
Maybe, but then Office starts almost as quickly in wine. So “Office is fast because of preloading” is bullshit.
It amuses me when OO users sputter, “buh-Windows is preloading DLLs that it will need to use later on!” As if that were a bad thing. Clearly, MS has identified the perf bottlenecks and tried to address them in a way that doesn’t involve compromising the feature set of the app.
Using OpenOffice Quickstarter greatly reduces loading times. In other words, once you use the same tricks, OO.o starts as fast as MSOffice does.
OO advocates would have us all believe that having reduced functionality is a good thing — even if you find that functionality useful.
Strawman argument. That’s not what the OP was saying at all. MS apologists would have us all believe that OO.o cannot start as quickly as MSOffice, when in fact it can.
I think if you set out to build an app with 80 or so functions (Word 1), a gui model is ideal and I fondly remember those old apps.
If you set out to build a more powerful office app that has 1500 functions, I don’t think a single gui makes any sense anymore, it is much better to use language driven systems or break the thing into lots of separate gui components that can be organized as mini tools with the file system Explorer/Finder doing its part. Only the most used components need to be in front of you. Eventually the app authors are just reinventing the OS again instead of using it.
Why not try alternate suites like koffice, openoffice, abiword …. the list goes on.
Because they are inferior in many aspects, and because this new version of Office offers something new that those others do not. They pretty much just offer a ripped off experience of MSO.
I use OpenOffice. I’ve used MS Office.
From my practical and utilitarian use of both products, I’ve asked myself these questions:
1) Does it let you create documents (letters, memos, and other pieces of documentation)
2) Does it tabulate formulas and render financial and mathmatical information in a spreadsheet view.
3) Does it let you create presentations with graphics, pictures and text based on individual slides or a group slide show?
4) Does it let you create a database with forms, tables and queries?
These are the fundamental uses of both OpenOffice and MS Office.
They both can do these things. OpenOffice would be inferior if it could not accomplish these basic tasks; however OpenOffice can do so.
Everything else in both products is an “added on feature” that does not preclude the user from doing the basic tasks; the added on features is what distinguishes one from another.
Unfortunately, it’s the “added features” that have caused bloat.
Word- Should be used for simple letters, correspondence, and simple documents.
People are now using it for technical documentation, manuals, labels, flyers and PR materials.
MS should be “nudging” users towards Publisher for those things, not overburdening Word with every feature under the sun.
Excel- a financial calculation program using a “spreadsheet” to view multiple and complex calculations and formulas.
People are now using it to create lists, create forms, keep log files(simple databases?), and link to database files, all of which aren’t the intended use of a spreadsheet.
This is what Access was designed for. Yet they keep adding these features into Excel. More bloat.
If you want to say that OpenOffice is inferior, then look at the model MS uses with Office, and the mindset in designing for what’s practical is inferior as well.
If you really think it’s that simple, that it comes down to only being able to do basic tasks, then I am truly sorry.
All you’ve illustrated here is that OO.o is good enough for you (and some others), not that OO.o is not inferior in aspects (such as memory usage, speed, many very specific features, etc).
What I thought I was demonstrating was that evaluating the problem based on tightly specific criteria without looking at the more general practical application of the product was not the best way of evaluating OpenOffice.
In other words, don’t focus on the details; see the bigger wider view.
Details are important to most businesses.
Actually, no. Many businesses and professionals use only the basic capabilities of an Office suite. You wouldn’t believe the number of MSOffice user who don’t use something as basic as styles, for example.
In many cases, OpenOffice would be sufficient. Of course, its performance issues and the fact that it is ugly as hell don’t help it out much…
Is AbiWord available for Windows?
The bloat in MS Windows and Office comes from years of updating the same old code base tacking on patches, new features, etc. This happens a lot in the software field.
Sometimes the best way to fix this bloat problem is to take a look at the existing features and figure out a way to rewrite the old code so it written more efficiently, refactor it. This takes a lot of time and money. A lot of companies, such as MS, don’t allow for a refactoring phase in their sofware design so engineers have to splice on features that duplicate code. It is a difficult balancing act between refactoring code and adding features that consumers demand. Unfortunately good engineering takes a backseat to marketing dept. pressures and so what you get it bloated code that is complex, takes many people to update, and in general is a pain in the rear to maintain.
Edited 2006-06-21 16:59
I was working for a university back in the early 90s when Microsoft came around showing off their fancy new “office suite” thing. They were all excited about how they were moving towards a consistant look and feel between all the applications. “We’re not quite there yet but it’s much better than it used to be!” So finally someone asked, “How much space is this whole thing going to take if we install the entire office suite?” “Well, it’s not quite finalized yet but somewhere around 250 megabytes.”
Our Macs had 212 meg hard drives.
“Well, you don’t have to install all of the applications. Just the ones you need to use on a particular machine.”
So why would we want to license a bunch of software we couldn’t install and wouldn’t have used if we had the space for installation? The vast majority of our users just needed Word. Maybe half of them used Excel.
It’s not just application bloat that’s a problem. It’s the concept of bundling everything under the sun when most people really only need one or two pieces.
“It’s not just application bloat that’s a problem. It’s the concept of bundling everything under the sun when most people really only need one or two pieces.”
You do realize that although they have the apps bundled, you can now and have always been able to buy the different apps seperate right? The bundle is geared to save money for people that actually need all of the apps.
True, but for Home users certainly, the separate apps cost more than the suite.
I agree wholeheartedly. My point was that if the person only needed word, then they would save the money and get the app seperate. No need to buy the whole suite.
*edited to change the wording
Edited 2006-06-21 17:52
So why would we want to license a bunch of software we couldn’t install and wouldn’t have used if we had the space for installation?
Why you should have promptly upgraded those machines to handle the new ‘bigger’ version. Whats wrong with you man!? 😉
…when you say bloat…you mean fat…as in taking up space and too much resources on the hard drive. Office does not take as much space on the hard drive. In fact my Office folder shows it is taking up 102 MB of space and that includes the service packs and so on for Office. There is a MS Office folder under Program Files and that is the size which I am reporting. Yes the suite is a bit clumsy but so is OpenOffice. The price for MSO is outrageous though. But being unfortunately stuck with the Windows platform, seems to me that I would rather pay for this MS Office suite than use OpenOffice just so I can have veyr high speed and have compatibility with most users. I dont want to but I have to. Just saves me headache in the long run. But it is good that Microsoft is admitting their blunders. Is this a new page turner for them? Are they going to apologize about the Vista promises and delays as well?
Despite all this I am still looking forward to MSO 2007 because honestly it looks great to me. I like the Ribbon concept. Will take around 5 minutes of playing with it and voila! No hunting through menus anymore!
I’ve just launched Excel after reading this article. It took 1 sec to show me the splash screen and 1 more sec to make a spreadsheet available.
I’m running Office 2003 on an A64 2800+ 512 RAM, regular ATA HDD: a cheap configuration nowadays.
What really annoys me with Microsoft is that it admits problems always post factum. The products are bright and shining and sweet and everything up until the new version have to be sold.
“We first of all added these menus that would collapse and expand which were… universally hated” he said.
“These applications were really big; they were unwieldy with the user interface that we had..”
In contrast to:
“Our new user interface is much more contextual. Its based around what you’re doing…”
And this is not about MS Office only. DDE/OLE, COM, .NET anyone? Or every new Windows version? It’s so annoying predictable that it doesn’t matter anymore if they tell the truth or not.
Edited 2006-06-22 06:32
Just feature rich.
🙂