Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft Office/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Editions and Versions

Outlook is listed in the bundle matrix for Office 2007 Home and Student edition. According to Amazon and numerous negative comments by users on Amazon, Outlook is not bundled with this version. Unless they have all got it wrong, this should be changed.Ma1cius (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ive removed three points of vandalism using global replace, as you will see in history, but there may be more. I think an unwind might be more appropriate but I dont have time to analyse whether that would lose recent contributions. me=82.33.82.91. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.82.91 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Criticism

Am I the only one who sees a suspicious lack of criticism for this? I mean, I'm not saying that some PR guru edited this to make Office look good ([http://www.badscience.net/?p=364 a la Patrick Holford}), but it does seem as if there should be more...

Loves....--Jazzwick 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why criticism? It's informational piece. We got Slashdot and Groklaw for trashtalk 131.107.0.101 08:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is written as a glowing advertisement. There is little useful information, and lots of marketing talk. It's embarrassing that every Microsoft-related article is like this, while other vendor-related articles are balanced.

There is no mention of Microsoft's releases for OS/2 (it appears they were removed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.219.4 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

NO mention of constant tweaking of formats to hinder competition? and force upgrades —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.210.78 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate page?

Why is there a separate article for criticism? It's barely longer than the snippet on this article. I believe it should just be on this page, and its own article deleted. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 15:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Market share

"Office is [...] although its market share is currently decreasing with the rise of viable free and open source alternatives."

Where's the evidence for this claim? Explicitly including "free and open source" doesn't sound NPOV to me when "rise of viable alternatives" would suffice in the intro section.

Patience,my friend, I am currently researching through Microsoft's own SEC filings where this is stated very clearly. I will post the link to the supporting documents.

If the claim, "most popular" is made, there should also be mention of what it is "most popular" against. Otherwise, it is not NPOV.

My apologies for my somewhat sloppy editing procedures.

58.69.210.219 04:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for providing a source for it. The main problem is that the intro is rather longish at the moment. Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 04:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can include just the reference?

I just think its important to cite two things in the intro: The growing popularity of open source competitors, and Microsoft's own response to the threat, which is Windows Live, essentially an online version of MS Office, since I believe that will become an important part of the "MS Office" product space. 58.69.210.219 05:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about editing 100% correctly, just keep providing references for claims - there are plenty of people here who do minor cleanup - some with automated bots. Windows Live perhaps is a good idea to have in the intro but perhaps you might consider moving some of the competitor stuff to the "Alternatives" section. Thanks :). Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 05:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the phrase "in the world" to "on the Windows and Macintosh platforms" as this is more NPOV. MS Office does not exist on the various Unix platforms, it doesn't exist on mini and mainframe type systems, so to use the phrase "in the world" would require defining what "part of the world" it runs on.

Gazpacho reverted the text.

re:Gazpachos claim. Microsoft Office is the number one "in the world" which part of the world? That first sentence of the last paragraph of the intro IS A Marketing statement, not NPOV.

Are we talking about MS Office 2003, which has lower installed base of older versions of MS Office? If MS Office 2003 is number one, what is the reason for the Dinosaurs ad campaign of Microsoft? Is it becuse users of old versions are not migrating?

I think there is no dispute that THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF MS OFFICE COMBINED are number one in the Windows space, a slim number one over Apple's Appleworks and iWork, but it is also indisputable that MS Office has ZERO presence in other computing systems.

Linux, Solaris, and my car and microwave oven (both of which have embedded computing systems) don't run Microsoft Office. From an NPOV standpoint, it should be qualified what "part of the world" it runs on. If there is a claim that because it is number one on Windows, it is number one in the world, then let'substantiate that with real figures of actual Windows market share (as opposed to Intel platform market share, which covers just the hardware and can run, aside from Windows, Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, or even a proprietary system as an embedded controller).

If Gazpacho wants to delete references to competitors, including references pointing to Microsoft's own statements and replace it with a marketing statement, at the very least there must be a reference to that claim.

There is no place in Wikipedia for marketing hype. 58.69.210.219 06:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Microsoft Office works on Linux in conjunction with CrossOver Office. I've also removed the Windows Live stuff you added -- it's completely wrong. Windows Live has nothing on it that qualifies as a "subscription service" for Microsoft Office features. There is Microsoft Office Live, of course, but that's web-hosting. Warrens 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that there are ways to run MS Office and other Windows applications on Linux. Heck, it even runs on ReactOS. It will probably even run on my car's Engine computer if someone makes an emulator for it. But, what is its presence there? It's leadership in Windows and Mac does not imply dominance in other operating systems.
And how does one explain to the Wiki users that there is Windows Office Live? What was Microsoft's rationale for creating it? Could it not be the issues they mentioned in the SEC filing you've just deleted? How do you address the needs of Wiki users researching the rationale of Windows Office Live? MS Office is a program, and then suddenly Microsoft decided to make a pay per use low cost licensing version for the same product. Since its an evolution of Office, why is it not explained, in Microsoft's own words, why this evolution was made?58.69.210.219 05:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft's rationale for creating Windows Office Live seems to be quite simple -- it's for small businesses that need a domain name and web/email hosting. The Office Live Essentials edition also has some tools for small businesses to centralize document storage and some company information; it's basically for people who don't have a file server in-house. This stuff is all extremely straightforward, doesn't replicate features that are in Office, and is clearly documented on their web site: http://officelive.microsoft.com/default.aspx.
As for the SEC stuff, I didn't delete that bit; someone else did. Understand, however, that Microsoft's acknowledgement that they have competition is not relevant information when introducing the subject of Microsoft Office, which is a software application suite. It's important when writing an encyclopedic article that we stay focused on the subject at hand, and not get carried away with esoteric side-points that have extremely limited informational value for readers coming to the subject for the first time. Warrens 09:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also qualified the statement about the de facto standard. The de facto standard is the file formats created by Office, not the program itself, since many other Office suites also open and save documents in MS Office formats.

I think, though, that there should be a subcategory discussing MS Office File formats: previous, current, and future ones.58.69.210.219 05:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting this change. The software itself is the "de facto" standard -- that's what it is important to get across. The file formats are ubiquitous only because the software is popular, not because of any inherent merit in them. Warrens 09:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No, the file format is the de facto standard since most alternative Office productivity applications need to support it, since it is the file format that is the de facto standard. Alternative Office suites can open and save MS Office files through converters and filters. The MS Office program cannot be a standard, de facto or otherwise because it is a proprietary product. If you receive an MS Office file: Word, PowerPoint, or Excel, what is your certainty that MS Office was used to create and/or edit it? It is the documents that are passed around, not the program, so these are the ones that can be called a "de facto" standard. —58.69.210.219 05:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You're apparently confused about what the English word "standard" means in this context. Please review the dictionary definition here, specifically where it defines it as a noun as "Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence", and as an adjective as "Normal, familiar, or usual: the standard excuse." and "Commonly used or supplied: standard car equipment." I know a lot of "anti-Microsoft" advocates who advocates "open alternatives" tend to forget that in the real world (the one which Wikipedia addresses), the word "standard" does actually mean something other than "technical specification". That is how the phrase is used here, and to anybody not obsessed with the subject of "open alternatives", it makes complete sense. Warrens 13:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the relevance of 'open alternatives' to the discussion? The discussion is whether or not the de facto standard is the proprietary product or the file formats created by it. The definition you've posted: "Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence" explains it: The de facto standard is the 'practice' of saving documents in MS Office formats, regardless of the programs used to create them.58.69.210.219 05:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Office Assistant

I thought the Office Assistant appeared in 97

After googling, I believe you are right. -- Notheruser 00:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Nope. They're still present in Office 2003 - check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clippy

AutoShapes in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint

They are not very fair. How come they have a triangle, square (designated as a rectangle because it can be any rectangle as long as you don't hold down the shift key,) pentagon, hexagon, and octagon but no heptagon?? How come they have a sun and a moon but no earth?? How come they have a heart and a diamond but no club or spade?? The smiley face can turn into a frown by moving the mouse on the yellow rhombus located on the mouth, but they designate it as a smiley face. What they designate as a can is properly called a cylinder.

Err.. I think it's meant to be more user-friendly. Believe it or not, there are some people who don't know what a cylinder was, but if given the example 'can', they would know what you were talking about. --DX 05:47, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone who has used the Office Binder for something useful please describe it in the article? (Don't worry about the English, I'll clean it up if necessary.) Thanks. -- I including ms access with excel, word power point Mpt 00:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Spe88 19:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Application names

Hi,

So, after the release of Microsoft Office System 2003, the applications' names turned into Microsoft Office sg. For example: Microsoft Outlook --> Microsoft Office Outlook; Microsoft FrontPage --> Microsoft Office FrontPage; etc.

So, aren't the articles of the applications supposed to have they current name?

--Szajd 10:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Not all. Going by the title bar on the applications, older apps keep their old titles (e.g. Word), while new ones get "Office" in the middle (e.g. OneNote). Enochlau 00:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

prices

if someone could list some (reccommended) selling prices that would be most informative!

Since prices change, perhaps a link to a pricing service or online store would be more applicable?

also, can we break down the different packages of MS Office? Some versions don't include PowerPoint for example, but its not readily apparent in the list of versions.

I did some work on this page

I added a one-paragraph summary of each of the four basic Microsoft Office programs. I believe that this adds greatly to this Wikipedia article. I hope that this helps a little in countering Wikipedia's open source bias. Perhaps we can remove the "cleanup" template and replace it with a "requests for expansion" template? Andrew pmk 19:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I did some more. I added a list of 2003 Microsoft Office editions and the {{Infobox software}} template. Can I remove the cleanup template now? Andrew pmk 19:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Service Packs/Service Releases

"Whereas Windows uses "Service Packs", Office used to release "Service Releases". However, after Office 2000 Service Release 1, Office now only release Service Packs."

Windows 95 had Service Releases. Office 2000 had Service Release 2. Both Windows and Office have had Service Releases, but the current convention for both is to issue Service Packs.

So I would suggest that the wording in the article needs tweaking.

--EdB 01:57, 21 July 2005 (BST)


FrontPage

Contrary to what the article said, Microsoft FrontPage is NOT included with Microsoft Office 2003 Professional Edition.

Here's a confirmation: FrontPage 2003 Frequently Asked Questions --68.127.152.9 12:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (sorry, I hit back)


Office 12

A few links for new Office 12 section or page

WebDAV

Hello, does someone know what is the first version to support WebDAV? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.170.137 (talk • contribs)

That would be Office 2000 when suddenly MS "webified" Office because of the internet's rising popularity and added HTML, WebDAV and Office Web Components (OWC).

Alternates

Should they be called alternates or competitors? Alternates would indicate equal standing and as we all know Microsoft Office has the majority market share to the programs listed.

Perhaps the OpenOffice section in this article should point specifically to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird as Mozilla Thunderbird has a compatible license, fully cross-platform and comparable in relative goal marked share to products like Firefox and OOo? --Tdp 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are sections describing MS Office components full of competitor information, while similar info does not "clutter" (IMO) OO.o page? This article stinks of biased POV to include mention of competitors wherever possible. Alternatives are listed in a separate section. I think that is good enough. Jxyama 22:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the OO.o page? All the alternatives are listed there as well. --Karnesky 03:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have. Have you? Each component description, such as "Writer" does not mention explicit competitors. It mentions Word in passing since Writer mimicks the look and feel. Jxyama 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
OpenOffice.org#Alternatives lists alternative suites, just as Microsoft Office#Alternatives does. OO.o Writer is compared to Word; OO.o Calc to Excel, OO.o to PowerPoint, OO.o Base to Access, OO.o Draw to CorelDraw, OO.o Math to MS Equation editor, and the macros are even compared to VBA. Additionaly alternatives are listed on pages for each component of both office suites. If you see a problem with bias, you're welcome to try to make an edit which improves NPOV. --Karnesky 19:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


OpenOffice.org#Components I was referring to this section lacking mention of competitors. Jxyama 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It does list the de facto standards in that section, most of which are MS Office components. I'm failing to see the bias there.... The other apps are also listed in the main articles for each individual component. As I said--if you see a problem, fix it! --Karnesky 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who added back (effectively) mostly OO.o component comparisons but that's just silly. Office predates OO.o - to include comparisons to OO.o is factual, but I argue to be based on biased motives. "Mirroring" the content in OO.o article in an attempt to legitimize it does not address the fact it's not necessary. If anything, take MS Office mentions out of OO.o article instead. Most people who know OO.o knows MS Office, but not the other way around. I argue that adding mention of comparisons to Office in OO.o adds knowledge, while reverse does not. Jxyama 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I felt that the Office article should at least name the word OpenOffice.org once and give a link. So I have added one in the see also section. For disagreement please don't hasitate to email "justus . schwabedal gmx de". I'm interrested. January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.178.59 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is the logo changed so early? The older one, Image:MicrosoftOfficeLogo.png, is more common today and Office 2007 is not released, the currently image (Image:Microsoft Office logo (2006).gif) is not transparent and very small. The page should be updated with the new logo until Office 2007 is released. See the official site for Office, [1]: the logo is the one in Office 2003 and not 2007. 1() 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

How did u manage to enter the version of the release? I see nothing when u click 'edit'. No Latest release template etc. --Shandris 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The magic that is Infobox Software2. I'd like to change it back; magic on wikipedia is a bad idea, unless there's really a need for it. And there isn't in this case. Any objections? -- Steven Fisher 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the magic is fairly transparent--it doesn't take too much effort to locate Template:Latest stable release/Microsoft Office. The idea of using templates for stable versions is a good one & would make software comparison pages more maintainable. --Karnesky 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I might feel less negative on the subject if there weren't two product version numbers in one template there. Office is probably a bad example of how this should work. -- Steven Fisher 06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia Talk page in Proper English not in Shortened or otherwise please say 'you' instead of 'u' I'm sure that it must be hard to translate for persons not able to read English.

Start article on Office Mobile

Can someone start an article about Office Mobile that runs on PDA's? Wikipedia so far has no information whatsoever about Office on the PDA's. Thanks. User:RaviC

You're right: Windows Mobile 5.0 --Shandristhe azylean cat 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I have just started a pretty rubbish article on Office Mobile here. I would be grateful if someone could make it into a good article RaviC

Office vX

Should this article mention the Office X vs. Office vX thing, or is it just not notable enough? Perhaps in the trivia? (If you don't know what I'm talking about, say "Office X" as "Office Ecks" quickly three times.) -- Steven Fisher 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply incorrect

"Office made its first appearance in the early-1990s, and was initially a marketing term for a bundled set of applications that were previously marketed and sold separately." Well simply untrue. Office was released as long ago as 1989. [2]. I do notice that this article seems to suggest in the way it is written that Office was originally a Windows product. Perhaps it needs rewriting to give the true history of the product ie produced for Apple first then developed for Windows later.

"Microsoft Office is a suite of productivity programs created or purchased by Microsoft and developed for Microsoft Windows, and Apple Computer's Mac OS and Mac OS X operating systems." Two things commentable about this sentence. 1. As the term "Mac OS" includes "Mac OS X" there is no need to reiterate it. Simply remove the Mac OS X reference. 2. I would change it to "and developed originally for Apple's Mac OS and later Microsoft's own Window's Operating System.

Candy 13:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize I'm practicing thread necromancy here, but I disagree that Mac OS includes Mac OS X. I think this is a little sloppy, and is best left explicit. -- Steven Fisher 17:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I was saying that it was not explicit. How would you feel if it said "MS Office was available for Windows OS and Windows XP"? It should either read Mac OS or preferably Mac OS (classic or 7 - 9) and Mac OS X. As it stands it's tautology and unspecific imho. Candy 21:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree Candy. 'Mac OS' on its own generally means the 'classic' (pre-NeXT/UNIX) Mac operating systems. Your analogy of 'Windows OS and Windows XP' isn't quite right. 'Mac OS X' means any version of the Mac operating system that is based on the Mach kernel, which includes everything from OS X 10.0 to the forthcoming 10.5 release. Therefore Mac OS (which includes System 7, OS 8 and OS 9) and Mac OS X (which includes 10.1, .2 ... .5) are two separate, discrete, and dissimilar operating systems. eiscir 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Logo of Microsoft Office

I changed the logo for Microsoft Office because the old Microsoft Word Screenshot in my opinion gave a bit of bias to Microsoft Word and not the whole of Office. I also did this because it showed an information box and one doesn't generally put in random screenshots unless it is a wiki of that particulr program. Better? --Oliverdavison 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Publisher

Although Microsoft Publisher is listed in the Common Office Programs, the rest of its blurb downplays its importance. And I have to agree with this downplaying. I feel it should be moved to the Other programs included in the Windows versions section, given both its relative lack of importance (no more so than Access, certainly!) and single-platform nature. -- Steven Fisher 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Alternatives

Please discuss at Talk:List of office suites. --Karnesky 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Service Packs

Why is it that no information about SP1 and SP2 are listed in the article?

SP2 was released on Sept 27th 2005.

Proof here: http://news.com.com/Microsoft+Office+2003+SP2+released/2110-1011_3-5884533.html

Can someone please add that to the article, as I don't exactly know here to put it.


Probably because we would have to start including update packs for the Mac version too. Totally uninteresting and possibly only vaguelly interesting even to the most hard nosed geeks. Candy 20:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Diambiguation

I think Microsoft Office Should have a diambiguation page due to its past, present, future programmes plus Information in general (like this page). But don't know how to create disambiguations, could someone with a little time do that and I'll neaten up?

There is a beta for "future programmes", but that is taken care of with "preview". I also have not found any articles dealing with Microsoft Office's past (I'd like to create one dealing with the differences between the different versions (like compare 2000 to 2003), but I only know 2003 (so I do not know how they are different)). I might be able to do some of the compatability things shown in 2003, but that probably wouldn't fit. —MysticMetal 17:07, 02 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand thanks--Oliver Davison 16:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Outlook and Entourage

I note that Outlook is included in the Common section, but Entourage in the Other Mac programs. While on the surface this makes sense as the Windows version of Office is a lot more popular than the Mac one, I think it would make even more sense to merge these sections into the Common section, so it covers Outlook/Entourage. Does anyone have any feelings on this? -- Steven Fisher 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

InfoPath and Office Editions

InfoPath is not included in Office 2003 Professional. It is only available in Microsoft Office Professional Enterprise Edition 2003

link: http://www.microsoft.com/office/infopath/howtobuy/default.mspx#EMC

Lack of copy protection on MS Office for Mac OS

My entry on the MS Office 2004 having no copy protection was removed. I have put this back into the encyclopedia. The user who removed it made a comment about "what next putting links to crack sites?" is valid, if someone were to post instructions on how to crack or hack programs then I would agree that the encyclopedia had stepped across the boundaries of what is acceptable as content.

The key point is that Microsoft, famous for their love of DRM and copy protection, have released a program that has no protection at all. Nothing. Not a sausage. The program doesn't need to be hacked, or cracked, or installed, or activated, or serials entered. It is completely and utterly unguarded. Now I'm all in favour of that, being a big open source and freeware advocate, but this is a commercial release that MS are charging £349 for this product in the UK.

I think you'll have to find some pretty strong justification for NOT mentioning that a hugely expensive program was designed and sold to be so easily replicated. There is no hacking or cracking here, literally any user can achieve this. It is the difference between someone being a master forger and someone using a photocopier. No outside knowledge was needed, and the passage I put in is purely a description of the product itself, which is different from every other MS program out there in terms of security. As such, it is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. I'd welcome suggestions on the wording, but this is absolutely of interest and needs recording.

Parkingtigers 11:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I didn't know if it was really notable enough for the article. It wasn't primarily a "security" issue from the user point of view, so the new section is an improvement. If this is to be kept, I'd do the following: shorten it & place it as a note in the "Versions for Apple Macintosh OS" section. A citation would also be useful. --Karnesky 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's encyclopedic or well-referenced, and I think it makes a lot of unfair assertions (for instance, the statement about "lending itself" to piracy is complete hogwash). -- Steven Fisher 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it shouldn't be in the article. Some users might read it as implying it can/should be freely copied just because it doesn't prevent copies.
Not having information on the article page in Wikipedia has at least two reasonable points (in addition to the above):
  • The software is proprietary anyway;
  • Therefore, potential users of office suites should and must be encouraged to obtain free software instead (such as OpenOffice or NeoOffice). Also, Wikipedia is a project born out of free software ideals, which is why promoting free software is most sensible.
-Mardus 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
While I personally appreciate F/OSS & believe this paragraph may not fit in the article, your rationale runs counter to WP:SOAP. It is important that the choice that is made for the right reason & bias for free software is not a good reason to change this or any other article. --Karnesky 12:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither should published content in Wikipedia make it liable for legal action. -Mardus 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If there was a WP:RS for it (which Steven Fisher and I both mentioned as possible prerequisites for inclusion), I don't really see how how this would be a factor. --Karnesky 19:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

I did some changes to the template so that it now displays versions w/links. Now need to create articles for some of the different versions. --Windsamurai 04:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Office 2007 is out for business users now

...so maybe the "Stable release" on the infobox should be changed to reflect this. I don't, however, know what version number it is so I can't do this myself. Anyone? --Mark (Talk | Contribs | Email) 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Word 2003 screenshot image

I uploaded the screenshot like this: 250px|center is a PNG screenshot. Ignore this screenshot of changing the desktop wallpaper. The recently screenshot is just only a low-quality JPEG... --Jigs41793 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


For Office 2007 screenshots...

I have been trying to update the office related articles. It looks like many of the screenshots of old (of 2003 apps) or of beta apps. If you guys need good screenshots of 2007 products, please visit my project page: User:Wiki_fanatic/Office_2007_Screenshots_Project Thank you for help updating the office articles.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 11:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

infopath

What are consumer scenarios for Infopath? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Probably only for filling out forms and submitting them. However, every person requires InfoPath installed on his comp and in Office 2003, InfoPath was only available to volume license customers. MS does not yet have a free InfoPath Viewer/Form Filler or browser-based way to fill forms inspite of feature requests, except if you have SharePoint on the server. In short, InfoPath is targeted at organizations who use paper-based forms to replace them with interactive ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.180.134 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

keyboard shortcuts for Win and Mac for Office

Please link a wiki article on keyboard shortcuts for Win and Mac for Office. Don't forget to include laptop alterations to the shortcuts! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.151.239.82 (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC).


Apple equivalents

What are the Apple equivalents of Microsoft Office (not the version for Macs but the alternative)?

See iWork -- simxp (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Trials

In an effort to provide more education on office 2007, I added a few links to the page that to more info on the actual products and allows you to try it free to see how it works. These edits were reverted for fear of spam, however, they aren't even close to spam. They allow you to read more about the products and try them (if you so choose) without giving annoying information like CC's. My edits don't violate any wikipedia guidelines, muck up the page, or undermine the integrity of it's content. Can these edits be left alone? I think the fear is that these links lead you to buy something, and they don't even come close. They lead you to more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vand0487 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there were two problems with your additions. Firstly, you added seventeen lines of the same essential content, for different languages. This is a huge waste of page space; I suggest to you the possibility that http://www.trymicrosoftoffice.com will automatically redirect users to the correct language-specific site (though I have not confirmed this). Even if it doesn't, it is generally assumed that all links in the English language Wikipedia are in English; there is no need to put links in all languages. The second problem was the fact that the links were all referral links (the refferer.aspx?r=... part); these are, I think, regarded as unacceptable, since they could be affiliate links. Wikipedia must be independent; that's part of WP:NPOV. -- simxp (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the refer codes are completely unacceptable and provide a rather clear indication of your intentions. Please do not add the links again. Kuru talk 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The link to converters and viewers doesn't work. If anyone has the site, would we be able to update it? Douglas 04:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Linking to promotional website

I feel, especially because many are still unaware of, due in part mainly to the lack of active advertising of it, that the mention of www.theultimatesteal.com should be included in this article. I decided to bring this up here before I got into an edit war with anyone (as the situation was in danger of, atleast on my part, becoming. I am a college student.Money is TIGHT, and I would say I am one of the more fortunate students out there. I'm not poor, but I am NOT rich either. One of the reverters of my edit to include mention of the promotion in the article gave as his reason for removing my edit a snide little comment about how "purchases are best made at 'my' campus store". Umm, this is an online-only deal, and yes, they do sell, at my school store, Microsoft Office 2007...Home & Student, which retails around $150. This is the FULL version of Office WHICH IS offered by Microsoft, for $60. Why would I pay more than double for a limited product, when I could get the comprehensive edition for less than half? For many college students, every dollar counts, and if they can be made aware of a legit and legal official deal from Microsoft, then I say, why not post it here? I think that is most certainly valuable information. Maybe a prospective student's parents are looking to buy their student a computer, and because they found out about www.theulimatesteal.com, they can help their student purchase Office 2006 at a serious discount, and give them the full product instead of just the basics.

Yes, the site is registered to Mr. Youth, but the promotion is being run by Microsoft. (see http://www.microsoft.com/education/ultimatesteal.mspx for their official rules and regulations.) And though it's promoted via bloggers and I did first hear about it through Digg, not everyone has time to be sifting through Digg or blogs, and how can you look for something you aren't aware exists? Many college students do come to wikipedia, and even more people may know someone who could get some use from the information. I believe this is no mere issue of advertising, as this information is very relevant to the struggle that is so familar to many of our college students. And also, yes, the website may be transient, implying concern that the website is too temporal to include in the article, but so what? I can't tell you how many dead links I've come across on Wikipedia. Don't worry, the office 2007 and the microsoft office main articles are "policed" pretty diligently. I'm sure there would be someone watching the countdown timer to midnight of the date when the promotion was to end so they could remove the mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingno (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is to use WP as a platform for promotion? WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. --Karnesky 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Office Binary (doc, xls, ppt) File Formats

On February 15 2008 Microsoft made available office formats under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise. It would be good to put this information somewhere on Wikipedia, but I cant find the right page for it.--Kozuch (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See Also section

I recently added a product to the "See Also" section that was removed. The product, OfficeWriter, is no different than other products in that sections, so could someone please tell me why it was removed. Like Apache POI, OfficeWriter, is a library that generates Office documents. Like Office itself, it is a commercial product. I would like to re-add the listing. I am completely new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm missing something here. Timk00 (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Do you agree with me or Kozuch here? In my (and many other's opinion) OOXML is certaily a free and open standard. [3] [4]   Helpsloose 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kozuch's revert says "Open Specification Promise != open source". I hope everyone involved in this discussion educates themselves on the distinction between open standards and open source.
Whether the OSP is open source is irrelevant. I would invite Kozuch's arguments on how OOXML fails to be an open standard, given that it is standardized under both ECMA International and ISO. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 23:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That said, I think the paragraph overall contains useful information and should remain in the article. I have edited it to better reflect the current situation. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 23:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Outdated and incorrect information in Criticism section

I removed the following text:

Microsoft Office is commonly criticized for its security issues and infections from macro viruses.[1] Secunia reports that out of the 15 vulnerabilities reported in 2006 for Microsoft Office 2003 (Standard Edition), 20% are unpatched, 33% are marked as Extremely Critical and 53% are marked as Highly Critical.[2]

Time to review this text: it is 2008 now and Office 2007 is out, with 9 total security advisories of which 1 is presently unpatched. Office 2003 now has 45 total advisories and 5 unpatched. Also the link for macro viruses refers to a vulnerability in Jet engine, not to anything related to macro viruses. More to the point, Office 2007 has a new trust center functionality to warn users about macro-enabled files, and new file formats (.docx, .pptx and .xlsx) which do not allow macros. Thoughts? 71.112.94.166 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Office's competition section missing

I think it would be more than appropriate if this article had a section briefly outlining the competition to Office. OpenOffice.org is only mentioned once in parentheses and in the links section. A brief listing of the competition or a comparison table with licenses (could be made into a template and used elsewhere too) with the office suites other than MS. Not having more than one mention of the major competitor of a software product is just helping monopolies to never get challenged. Keep in mind, this page is 4th on the top 10 if you google for Microsoft Office. 86.14.229.187 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an extensive article on the topic at Comparison of office suites, which is mentioned in the article. I see no need to add off topic information here as activism for other products. Kuru talk 16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Office 2007 will support ODF as a standard file format.

Office supports ODF

I think this should be added. Oub (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it actually happened; it will be implemented in Microsoft Office 2007 SP2, which is already mentioned in the article. This site mentions a need for a third-party "ODF plugin". — Wenli (reply here) 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Easter Egg DOES exist in Office 2000

"Versions starting with Office 2000 have not contained any easter eggs in the name of Trustworthy Computing" is inaccurate. See http://www.cs.fiu.edu/campus/cndg/msg00020.html Sadchild (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

suggesting an archive section

suggesting an archive section Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of 'Microsoft Office 2003'

Why the hell is 'Microsoft Office 2003' redirecting to this article? The guy who made the redirect must either be stupid, mean or lazy and i'm going to create an article for it NOW!!! Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Woah, calm down there! Remember to assume good faith and to be civil. --Ged UK (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


OSP

"Microsoft made the entire documentation for the binary Office formats freely available under the Open Specification Promise. [30]"

The sentence is grammatically misleading. The OSP is a patent promise and does not relate to the documentation of the format which indeed was made available but to implementations thereof. I propose to insert "available and patents under". Afaik there is a dedicated OSP wikipedia page. --Arebenti (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Vizact 2000 Icon.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

mac microsoft

My daughter has a mac computer with microsoft office 2007 on that. She needs to be able to load on some programs for her college classes and needs windows on it. So I was going to load on fusion from mac and add windows xp. was wondering if microsoft office 2008 for macs is the same program as microsoft office 2007 for pc? ``` confused mom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbond6123 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sooman, Derek (2005-04-13). "Fresh Microsoft Office security problems found". TechSpot.com. Retrieved 2006-11-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Office 2003 Standard Edition". Secunia. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Office/Archive_1&oldid=1088460612"