Discussion:
More MS innovation
(too old to reply)
DFS
2005-11-10 15:34:07 UTC
Permalink
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the fact is
their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental research in computer
science, and publishes a lot of it for the benefit of everyone.

And their products are continually improved. For instance, in the face of
little competition on the desktop database side (FileMaker Pro is about it),
the new version of Access 12 is filled to the brim with new ideas and
features.

http://blogs.msdn.com/access/

For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.

OpenOffice will be playing catch-up for the next 3 years, of course, until
the next release of MS Office, at which time the OO developers are forced to
hunker down again so people will quit chuckling at their efforts.
r***@usa.net
2005-11-10 16:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Exactly what is it that's new?

Linux and OSS have had nearly all of these features for years.

It looks like Microsoft just took a whole bunch of utilities which
exist independently on Linux - and tried to compile them all into one
rediculously huge executable.

I suppose if you are trying to come up with an application suite which
will gobble up as much memory as possible, as quickly as possible, so
that you won't have to share your 2 gigabyte memory with any other
virtual machines - that might be running Linux, that MS-Office might be
a really effective way to do that.

The benefits of doing all of this "development" on Access - is marginal
at best.

Better to use generation tools which can be used to create the standard
SQL scripts, and then keep the components decoupled. You can still
offer a suite of packages, but this way you have the option of having a
dedicated database server that is screaming fast, isolated from
client-specific middleware and user interface tools.

Microsoft is still clinging to the monolithic model, even as the rest
of the industry is pushing toward loosely coupled modules and
components which can be plugged together like "lego blocks".
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-11-10 20:00:03 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, ***@usa.net
<***@usa.net>
wrote
on 10 Nov 2005 08:29:22 -0800
Post by r***@usa.net
Exactly what is it that's new?
Linux and OSS have had nearly all of these features for years.
It looks like Microsoft just took a whole bunch of utilities which
exist independently on Linux - and tried to compile them all into one
rediculously huge executable.
I suppose if you are trying to come up with an application suite which
will gobble up as much memory as possible, as quickly as possible, so
that you won't have to share your 2 gigabyte memory with any other
virtual machines - that might be running Linux, that MS-Office might be
a really effective way to do that.
The benefits of doing all of this "development" on Access - is marginal
at best.
Better to use generation tools which can be used to create the standard
SQL scripts, and then keep the components decoupled. You can still
offer a suite of packages, but this way you have the option of having a
dedicated database server that is screaming fast, isolated from
client-specific middleware and user interface tools.
Microsoft is still clinging to the monolithic model, even as the rest
of the industry is pushing toward loosely coupled modules and
components which can be plugged together like "lego blocks".
Depends on what one means by "better". If one means "more effectively
and/or efficiently allow for getting the job done", then one
might have a good case for the LAMP framework.

If, OTOH, one means "improving the quality of vendor lock-in", then
Microsoft's solution is clearly better in that regard -- although
it depends on how cynical the customers get. ;-)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
DFS
2005-11-10 22:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@usa.net
Exactly what is it that's new?
Did you even read the webpage? Many, many things are new in Access 12. Out
of the 30 or so (just in Access) the ones that look to be most useful for me
are:

Data collection via email
Sandbox mode
Report Export to PDF
Report browse mode
Modern image support
Alternate row color
Datasheet totals row
Native rich text data
Date picker
Add existing fields
Post by r***@usa.net
Linux and OSS have had nearly all of these features for years.
Where? Scattered about in 10 different tools that can't be used together?
Which is useless, of course.
Post by r***@usa.net
It looks like Microsoft just took a whole bunch of utilities which
exist independently on Linux - and tried to compile them all into one
rediculously huge executable.
The MSACCESS.EXE executable is 6.5mb. Not at all ridiculous.
Post by r***@usa.net
I suppose if you are trying to come up with an application suite which
will gobble up as much memory as possible
And still much less than Slow To Open Or Load Office.org.
Post by r***@usa.net
, as quickly as possible, so
that you won't have to share your 2 gigabyte memory with any other
virtual machines - that might be running Linux, that MS-Office might
be a really effective way to do that.
What it will be *very* effective at - in my hands - is as a tool to give
users insight into their data.

You claim to be an IT architect. I expect you've written your share of EIS
systems, so you should know the value to a busines of a good analysis tool.
Post by r***@usa.net
The benefits of doing all of this "development" on Access - is
marginal at best.
That's arguable. To 'decouple' all the funcationality Access encompasses
would require a large investment in time, money and tools. You would need a
separate report writer, a separate query builder, a separate dbms, a
separate interface system, a separate scripting language, etc. And even
then, the best of those separate options usually isn't any better than
what's in Access.

The report writer Crystal Reports, which is a nice, powerful tool, provides
hardly any better reporting than can be generated using built-in Access. As
far as I know, the only query engines that approach Access capabilities are
expensive tools like Brio or Business Objects - neither of which are very
portable. Access has a weak db engine, but it's changing and improving, and
it's plenty sufficient for small-scale solutions (or even mid-size if you
deploy it on Citrix). It's very difficult to replicate the VB/Access data
widget functionality in anything but another closed-source system.

The fact is, you just don't know what you're talking about. You think your
lack of knowledge of and ability to program Access and Excel means they're
not capable of anything. You're wrong. For example, I just recently
integrated Hummingbird document management into an Access program. Now our
users all over the world can upload and retrieve and share documents (pdf,
MS Office, HTML, rich text, images, etc) with a few button clicks. Another
system utilizes a library so I can generate and unzip .zip files without
requiring the user to do it all manually.

Launch Access, create a new db, go to Modules | New | Tools | References.
The world awaits within. Learn and you'll go from zero to hero.
Post by r***@usa.net
Better to use generation tools which can be used to create the
standard SQL scripts, and then keep the components decoupled. You
can still offer a suite of packages, but this way you have the option
of having a dedicated database server that is screaming fast,
isolated from client-specific middleware and user interface tools.
I see the value in that. I also see the complexity, and the additional time
and effort.
Post by r***@usa.net
Microsoft is still clinging to the monolithic model, even as the rest
of the industry is pushing toward loosely coupled modules and
components which can be plugged together like "lego blocks".
That all sounds fine in theory, but when you need a stable, feature-rich
system developed in a reasonable timeframe, Access combined with Oracle is a
great combination. Put it on Citrix and let your users access it via a web
browser, and you get the best of all worlds.
Beowulf Trollshammer
2005-11-11 14:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
That's arguable. To 'decouple' all the funcationality Access
"funcationality"? So much for the resident spellchecker.
Post by DFS
encompasses would require a large investment in time, money and tools.
Cost of MySQL 5, PostgreSQL or Firebird for the database backend: $0.00 (all
of wich are *orders of magnitude* better than Jet)

Cost of Python 2.4 for scripting: $0.00 (a language *orders of magnitude*
better than VBA)

Cost of Kugar for reporting: $0.00 The latest version is 1.4.2 and is as good
as the report engine included with Access 2000. Haven't tried newer versions
of Access because I ditched M$ Orifice when they had the brilliant idea of
pissing off legitimate customers with WPA.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Microsoft is still clinging to the monolithic model, even as the rest
of the industry is pushing toward loosely coupled modules and
components which can be plugged together like "lego blocks".
That all sounds fine in theory,
And works wonderfully in practice.
Roy Schestowitz
2005-11-10 16:28:58 UTC
Permalink
__/ [DFS] on Thursday 10 November 2005 15:34 \__
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the fact is
their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental research in
computer science, and publishes a lot of it for the benefit of everyone.
Why is it posted here? This is a Linux newsgroup.
Post by DFS
And their products are continually improved. For instance, in the face of
little competition on the desktop database side (FileMaker Pro is about
it), the new version of Access 12 is filled to the brim with new ideas and
features.
<URL>
For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.
As a home user, will you be willing to pay the price? As a corporation, will
you be able to bear the cost? As an individual/corporation, will youever be
able to migrate your data elsewhere when the software is no longer
affordable?
Post by DFS
OpenOffice will be playing catch-up for the next 3 years, of course, until
the next release of MS Office, at which time the OO developers are forced
to hunker down again so people will quit chuckling at their efforts.
Your mind continues to wander in oblivion. The only reason some people stick
to Office is because licences have not expired yet and since OpenOffice is
*yet* to gain its deserved reputation. Hey, look! Published today...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5942913.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

<snip>

Big guns in the software industry are massing behind
OpenDocument as government customers show more interest
in open-source alternatives to Microsoft?s desktop
software.

</snip>

Roy

PS - just because you authored a book on Office does not make it formidable
to us. Wishful thinking ain't reality either.
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | WARNING: /dev/null running out of space
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:20pm up 7 days 12:18, 4 users, load average: 0.92, 0.77, 0.63
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
DFS
2005-11-10 17:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Schestowitz
__/ [DFS] on Thursday 10 November 2005 15:34 \__
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the
fact is their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental
research in computer science, and publishes a lot of it for the
benefit of everyone.
Why is it posted here? This is a Linux newsgroup.
Says you. The subjects and discussions here say differently.
Post by Roy Schestowitz
Post by DFS
And their products are continually improved. For instance, in the
face of little competition on the desktop database side (FileMaker
Pro is about it), the new version of Access 12 is filled to the brim
with new ideas and features.
<URL>
For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.
As a home user, will you be willing to pay the price? As a
corporation, will you be able to bear the cost? As an
individual/corporation, will youever be able to migrate your data
elsewhere when the software is no longer affordable?
The answer to all 3 is "Yes, of course!"

Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10 years now.
When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't expensive? In volume
licensing, I expect Office costs no more than $50 per employee per year.
Post by Roy Schestowitz
Post by DFS
OpenOffice will be playing catch-up for the next 3 years, of course,
until the next release of MS Office, at which time the OO developers
are forced to hunker down again so people will quit chuckling at
their efforts.
Your mind continues to wander in oblivion. The only reason some
people stick to Office is because licences have not expired yet
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that as the world ignores OO.
Post by Roy Schestowitz
and since OpenOffice is *yet* to gain its deserved reputation.
Oh, I think it will one day gain the reputation it deserves.
Post by Roy Schestowitz
Hey, look! Published today...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5942913.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
<snip>
Big guns in the software industry are massing behind
OpenDocument as government customers show more interest
in open-source alternatives to Microsoft?s desktop
software.
Cool. Big guns massed behind Linux a while ago, and it's not exactly taking
over the Microsoft desktop world, now is it?
Post by Roy Schestowitz
PS - just because you authored a book on Office does not make it
formidable to us. Wishful thinking ain't reality either.
You're thinking of a different DFS. The only thing I author are
hard-hitting, smackdown posts to cola.
TheLetterK
2005-11-10 17:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
__/ [DFS] on Thursday 10 November 2005 15:34 \__
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the
fact is their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental
research in computer science, and publishes a lot of it for the
benefit of everyone.
Why is it posted here? This is a Linux newsgroup.
Says you. The subjects and discussions here say differently.
Post by Roy Schestowitz
Post by DFS
And their products are continually improved. For instance, in the
face of little competition on the desktop database side (FileMaker
Pro is about it), the new version of Access 12 is filled to the brim
with new ideas and features.
<URL>
For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.
As a home user, will you be willing to pay the price? As a
corporation, will you be able to bear the cost? As an
individual/corporation, will youever be able to migrate your data
elsewhere when the software is no longer affordable?
The answer to all 3 is "Yes, of course!"
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10 years now.
When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't expensive? In volume
licensing, I expect Office costs no more than $50 per employee per year.
$50 per employee *just in Office licenses*. Full-on GNU/Linux solutions
with OOo and support included are under $40/seat.
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
Post by DFS
OpenOffice will be playing catch-up for the next 3 years, of course,
until the next release of MS Office, at which time the OO developers
are forced to hunker down again so people will quit chuckling at
their efforts.
Your mind continues to wander in oblivion. The only reason some
people stick to Office is because licences have not expired yet
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that as the world ignores OO.
Lots of companies are looking very hard at it. Office costs a lot, and
companies like to find ways to save money.
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
and since OpenOffice is *yet* to gain its deserved reputation.
Hey, look! Published today...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5942913.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
<snip>
Big guns in the software industry are massing behind
OpenDocument as government customers show more interest
in open-source alternatives to Microsoft?s desktop
software.
Cool. Big guns massed behind Linux a while ago, and it's not exactly taking
over the Microsoft desktop world, now is it?
Dismiss the danger to your platform if you will. If Office falls, so
will Windows.
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
PS - just because you authored a book on Office does not make it
formidable to us. Wishful thinking ain't reality either.
You're thinking of a different DFS. The only thing I author are
hard-hitting, smackdown posts to cola.
Where are these mythical posts?
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
William Poaster
2005-11-10 23:27:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:19:03 -0500, a broadcast message from the
<snip>
Post by TheLetterK
Post by DFS
You're thinking of a different DFS. The only thing I author are
hard-hitting, smackdown posts to cola.
AH, HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA.....etc.
Post by TheLetterK
Where are these mythical posts?
In what passes for his mind. The psychiatrist hasn't got around to
self-delusion yet.....
--
Lie of the 70's = The check is in the mail
Lie of the 80's = Trickle down economics
Lie of the 90's = I have not had sex with that woman/man/computer/etc.
Lie of the 00's = Monopoly promotes innovation.
Gordon Burgess-Parker
2005-11-10 17:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10 years now.
When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't expensive? In volume
licensing, I expect Office costs no more than $50 per employee per year.
That's just for Office. THEN, in order to fully use the functionality in
Outlook, say, you have to add the cost of Exchange, the Server OS
licence AND all the CALs you have to buy as well.
Imagine buying a server OS and THEN having to pay extra for each User to
access that server! What a RIPOFF!
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Reply address is a spamtrap
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!
DFS
2005-11-10 17:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10
years now. When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't
expensive? In volume licensing, I expect Office costs no more than
$50 per employee per year.
That's just for Office. THEN, in order to fully use the functionality
in Outlook, say, you have to add the cost of Exchange, the Server OS
licence AND all the CALs you have to buy as well.
Imagine buying a server OS and THEN having to pay extra for each User
to access that server! What a RIPOFF!
Yet businesses around the world have willingly paid for years now. So much
so that MS is one of the top 5 most valuable companies in the world, and its
founders the richest men on the planet.

Luckily the world has 8 cola nuts around to tell them not to buy MS
products.
Gordon Burgess-Parker
2005-11-10 18:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10
years now. When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't
expensive? In volume licensing, I expect Office costs no more than
$50 per employee per year.
That's just for Office. THEN, in order to fully use the functionality
in Outlook, say, you have to add the cost of Exchange, the Server OS
licence AND all the CALs you have to buy as well.
Imagine buying a server OS and THEN having to pay extra for each User
to access that server! What a RIPOFF!
Yet businesses around the world have willingly paid for years now. So much
so that MS is one of the top 5 most valuable companies in the world, and its
founders the richest men on the planet.
Luckily the world has 8 cola nuts around to tell them not to buy MS
products.
But my post destroys your $50 per employee though, doesn't it? Why not
just reply to the point made instead of veering away?
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Reply address is a spamtrap
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!
DFS
2005-11-10 18:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10
years now. When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't
expensive? In volume licensing, I expect Office costs no more than
$50 per employee per year.
That's just for Office. THEN, in order to fully use the
functionality in Outlook, say, you have to add the cost of
Exchange, the Server OS licence AND all the CALs you have to buy as
well.
Imagine buying a server OS and THEN having to pay extra for each
User to access that server! What a RIPOFF!
Yet businesses around the world have willingly paid for years now.
So much so that MS is one of the top 5 most valuable companies in
the world, and its founders the richest men on the planet.
Luckily the world has 8 cola nuts around to tell them not to buy MS
products.
But my post destroys your $50 per employee though, doesn't it?
Of course not. The cost of an Exchange Server and CALs for it are low.
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Why not just reply to the point made instead of veering away?
You're kidding, right? The point was started by Roy Schestowitz, who asked
if I/businesses was willing to pay the price for MS Office. You veered off
topic - nobody but you said anything about Exchange Server.
TheLetterK
2005-11-10 19:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10
years now. When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't
expensive? In volume licensing, I expect Office costs no more than
$50 per employee per year.
That's just for Office. THEN, in order to fully use the
functionality in Outlook, say, you have to add the cost of
Exchange, the Server OS licence AND all the CALs you have to buy as
well.
Imagine buying a server OS and THEN having to pay extra for each
User to access that server! What a RIPOFF!
Yet businesses around the world have willingly paid for years now.
So much so that MS is one of the top 5 most valuable companies in
the world, and its founders the richest men on the planet.
Luckily the world has 8 cola nuts around to tell them not to buy MS
products.
But my post destroys your $50 per employee though, doesn't it?
Of course not. The cost of an Exchange Server and CALs for it are low.
Compared to what? The cost of sending a man to the moon?
Post by DFS
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Why not just reply to the point made instead of veering away?
You're kidding, right? The point was started by Roy Schestowitz, who asked
if I/businesses was willing to pay the price for MS Office. You veered off
topic - nobody but you said anything about Exchange Server.
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
Kleuskes & Moos
2005-11-10 19:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10
years now. When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't
expensive? In volume licensing, I expect Office costs no more than
$50 per employee per year.
That's just for Office. THEN, in order to fully use the functionality
in Outlook, say, you have to add the cost of Exchange, the Server OS
licence AND all the CALs you have to buy as well.
Imagine buying a server OS and THEN having to pay extra for each User
to access that server! What a RIPOFF!
Yet businesses around the world have willingly paid for years now. So much
so that MS is one of the top 5 most valuable companies in the world, and its
founders the richest men on the planet.
Luckily the world has 8 cola nuts around to tell them not to buy MS
products.
Exactly

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5942913.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

Red Hat, Adobe, Computer Associates, Corel, Nokia, Intel and Linux
e-mail company Scalix, Oracle, Novell and Google seem to think they've
payed enough...

and
<quote>
James Gallt, the associate director for the National Association of
State Chief Information Officers, said Wednesday that there are a
number of other state agencies are exploring the use of the document
format standard.
</quote>

All Cola nuts?
DFS
2005-11-10 21:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10
years now. When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't
expensive? In volume licensing, I expect Office costs no more than
$50 per employee per year.
That's just for Office. THEN, in order to fully use the
functionality in Outlook, say, you have to add the cost of
Exchange, the Server OS licence AND all the CALs you have to buy as
well.
Imagine buying a server OS and THEN having to pay extra for each
User to access that server! What a RIPOFF!
Yet businesses around the world have willingly paid for years now.
So much so that MS is one of the top 5 most valuable companies in
the world, and its founders the richest men on the planet.
Luckily the world has 8 cola nuts around to tell them not to buy MS
products.
Exactly
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5942913.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
Red Hat, Adobe, Computer Associates, Corel, Nokia, Intel and Linux
e-mail company Scalix, Oracle, Novell and Google seem to think they've
payed enough...
They're all still paying, with maybe the exception of RedHat and Scalix.
They all develop products for Windows, so they have to keep up with it.
Post by r***@usa.net
and
<quote>
James Gallt, the associate director for the National Association of
State Chief Information Officers, said Wednesday that there are a
number of other state agencies are exploring the use of the document
format standard.
</quote>
All Cola nuts?
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-10 21:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10 years now.
When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't expensive? In volume
licensing, I expect Office costs no more than $50 per employee per year.
That's just for Office. THEN, in order to fully use the functionality in
Outlook, say, you have to add the cost of Exchange, the Server OS
licence AND all the CALs you have to buy as well.
Imagine buying a server OS and THEN having to pay extra for each User to
access that server! What a RIPOFF!
Outlook will give you all functionality of any normal mail client without
the need for any additional licenses. *IF* You want to use the groupware
features (ie, exchange) then you would pay for a client license for that.
`WarpKat
2005-11-10 22:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Outlook will give you all functionality of any normal mail client without
the need for any additional licenses. *IF* You want to use the groupware
features (ie, exchange) then you would pay for a client license for that.
And just HOW does one get Outlook, Erik? It sure as hell doesn't
squeeze out of a sysadmin's ass, now does it?
--
-- From #linuxfriends on irc.oftc.net
<`WarpKat> i see funkenbusch is back
<@Spicerun> `WarpKat: Who cares?
<tbird> hehe
<@Spicerun> He is a waste of breathable air space.
<`WarpKat> oh, i agree, but i missed him very very much.
<`WarpKat> it's not often that you find that special guy you just wanna
stab in the ear with a pencil.

-- I really did miss you, Erik... =:D
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-10 23:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by `WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Outlook will give you all functionality of any normal mail client without
the need for any additional licenses. *IF* You want to use the groupware
features (ie, exchange) then you would pay for a client license for that.
And just HOW does one get Outlook, Erik? It sure as hell doesn't
squeeze out of a sysadmin's ass, now does it?
I fail to understand your point in relation to the comment I am responding
to. The comment was claiming you had to buy extra licenses to use Outlook
(Exchange and CAL's), and I am saying that without those licenses, Outlook
gives you all the features of any other email client. it's only if you
want groupware that you need CAL's.
WarpKat
2005-11-11 03:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I fail to understand your point in relation to the comment I am responding
to. The comment was claiming you had to buy extra licenses to use Outlook
(Exchange and CAL's), and I am saying that without those licenses, Outlook
gives you all the features of any other email client. it's only if you
want groupware that you need CAL's.
Because in order to use Outlook, you have to buy MS Office. Yes. You
did fail. Miserably.
Larry Qualig
2005-11-11 04:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I fail to understand your point in relation to the comment I am responding
to. The comment was claiming you had to buy extra licenses to use Outlook
(Exchange and CAL's), and I am saying that without those licenses, Outlook
gives you all the features of any other email client. it's only if you
want groupware that you need CAL's.
Because in order to use Outlook, you have to buy MS Office. Yes. You
did fail. Miserably.
FYI - Outlook is also sold as a separate app. Most companies normally
get it included with MSO but you can certainly buy just Outlook if
desired.
`WarpKat
2005-11-14 16:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Qualig
Post by WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I fail to understand your point in relation to the comment I am responding
to. The comment was claiming you had to buy extra licenses to use Outlook
(Exchange and CAL's), and I am saying that without those licenses, Outlook
gives you all the features of any other email client. it's only if you
want groupware that you need CAL's.
Because in order to use Outlook, you have to buy MS Office. Yes. You
did fail. Miserably.
FYI - Outlook is also sold as a separate app. Most companies normally
get it included with MSO but you can certainly buy just Outlook if
desired.
So basically, you STILL have to buy it. Remarkable.
--
-- From #linuxfriends on irc.oftc.net
<`WarpKat> i see funkenbusch is back
<@Spicerun> `WarpKat: Who cares?
<tbird> hehe
<@Spicerun> He is a waste of breathable air space.
<`WarpKat> oh, i agree, but i missed him very very much.
<`WarpKat> it's not often that you find that special guy you just wanna
stab in the ear with a pencil.

-- I really did miss you, Erik... =:D
Larry Qualig
2005-11-14 18:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by `WarpKat
Post by Larry Qualig
Post by WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I fail to understand your point in relation to the comment I am responding
to. The comment was claiming you had to buy extra licenses to use Outlook
(Exchange and CAL's), and I am saying that without those licenses, Outlook
gives you all the features of any other email client. it's only if you
want groupware that you need CAL's.
Because in order to use Outlook, you have to buy MS Office. Yes. You
did fail. Miserably.
FYI - Outlook is also sold as a separate app. Most companies normally
get it included with MSO but you can certainly buy just Outlook if
desired.
So basically, you STILL have to buy it. Remarkable.
If you want just the full version of Outlook (not the Express version)
then you do have to buy it. But unlike what you wrote in your previous
post, you do *not* have to buy MS Office in order to get it.
Remarkable.
Post by `WarpKat
Because in order to use Outlook, you have to buy MS Office...
DFS
2005-11-11 04:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I fail to understand your point in relation to the comment I am
responding to. The comment was claiming you had to buy extra
licenses to use Outlook (Exchange and CAL's), and I am saying that
without those licenses, Outlook gives you all the features of any
other email client. it's only if you want groupware that you need
CAL's.
Because in order to use Outlook, you have to buy MS Office.
Of course you don't.
Post by WarpKat
Yes. You did fail. Miserably.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
`WarpKat
2005-11-14 17:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I fail to understand your point in relation to the comment I am
responding to. The comment was claiming you had to buy extra
licenses to use Outlook (Exchange and CAL's), and I am saying that
without those licenses, Outlook gives you all the features of any
other email client. it's only if you want groupware that you need
CAL's.
Because in order to use Outlook, you have to buy MS Office.
Of course you don't.
So basically, you STILL have to buy it. Remarkable.
--
-- From #linuxfriends on irc.oftc.net
<`WarpKat> i see funkenbusch is back
<@Spicerun> `WarpKat: Who cares?
<tbird> hehe
<@Spicerun> He is a waste of breathable air space.
<`WarpKat> oh, i agree, but i missed him very very much.
<`WarpKat> it's not often that you find that special guy you just wanna
stab in the ear with a pencil.

-- I really did miss you, Erik... =:D
Colin Day
2005-11-10 23:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by `WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Outlook will give you all functionality of any normal mail client without
the need for any additional licenses. *IF* You want to use the groupware
features (ie, exchange) then you would pay for a client license for that.
And just HOW does one get Outlook, Erik? It sure as hell doesn't
squeeze out of a sysadmin's ass, now does it?
So Outlook isn't a piece of excrement?

Colin Day
Sinister Midget
2005-11-11 04:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by `WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Outlook will give you all functionality of any normal mail client without
the need for any additional licenses. *IF* You want to use the groupware
features (ie, exchange) then you would pay for a client license for that.
And just HOW does one get Outlook, Erik? It sure as hell doesn't
squeeze out of a sysadmin's ass, now does it?
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
--
Microsoft may not be the root of all evil, but it's not for lack of
trying.
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-11 04:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
If your argument were to be believed, wouldn't it invalidate your argument
that office costs too much?
Gordon Burgess-Parker
2005-11-11 08:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Sinister Midget
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
If your argument were to be believed, wouldn't it invalidate your argument
that office costs too much?
I would have though that would /support/ the argument that Office costs
too much - people are forced to get it by, err, "unconventional" means!
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Reply address is a spamtrap
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!
High Plains Thumper
2005-11-13 13:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Sinister Midget
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
If your argument were to be believed, wouldn't it invalidate your
argument that office costs too much?
I would have though that would /support/ the argument that Office costs
too much - people are forced to get it by, err, "unconventional" means!
As of today, MS Office 2003 Standard is $369 US, Professional is $469 US,
cdw.com quoted. That is rather pricey, is it not?
--
HPT
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-13 13:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by High Plains Thumper
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Sinister Midget
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
If your argument were to be believed, wouldn't it invalidate your
argument that office costs too much?
I would have though that would /support/ the argument that Office costs
too much - people are forced to get it by, err, "unconventional" means!
As of today, MS Office 2003 Standard is $369 US, Professional is $469 US,
cdw.com quoted. That is rather pricey, is it not?
Few people pay retail for it. You either get it as an OEM package (usually
about $100) or you get it as part of a volume or student license agreement.
Jim Richardson
2005-11-13 20:01:44 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:35:56 -0600,
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by High Plains Thumper
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Sinister Midget
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
If your argument were to be believed, wouldn't it invalidate your
argument that office costs too much?
I would have though that would /support/ the argument that Office costs
too much - people are forced to get it by, err, "unconventional" means!
As of today, MS Office 2003 Standard is $369 US, Professional is $469 US,
cdw.com quoted. That is rather pricey, is it not?
Few people pay retail for it. You either get it as an OEM package (usually
about $100) or you get it as part of a volume or student license agreement.
And if you get it via "student" licence, you can't use it for work, can
you Erik?

As for OEMs Dell seems to charge $150 or so for basic MS-Office, not
pro, (includes Word, Excel and Outlook) This is all well and good *if*
you need a new computer, but if you don't, it's not particularly
helpful.

Personally, I'd prefer OpenOffice2, libre and gratis both, and with far
more function that this "basic" office suite.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDd5und90bcYOAWPYRAh73AJ9DA49XtZAFi20acnXSBLGLrfo4RwCfWA2F
SXj1HDqk2FDLAMjaqPYM13A=
=aV5i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Homo sapiens, isn't
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-14 00:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by High Plains Thumper
As of today, MS Office 2003 Standard is $369 US, Professional is $469 US,
cdw.com quoted. That is rather pricey, is it not?
Few people pay retail for it. You either get it as an OEM package (usually
about $100) or you get it as part of a volume or student license agreement.
And if you get it via "student" licence, you can't use it for work, can
you Erik?
Of course you can. You are purchasing a full version, with all the rights
of the full version. You are simply getting an academic discount.
Post by Jim Richardson
As for OEMs Dell seems to charge $150 or so for basic MS-Office, not
pro, (includes Word, Excel and Outlook) This is all well and good *if*
you need a new computer, but if you don't, it's not particularly
helpful.
Not very many people have an existing computer they suddenly decide they
want to put Office on. They usually decide that when they buy the
computer.
Roy Culley
2005-11-14 00:16:06 UTC
Permalink
begin risky.vbs
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by High Plains Thumper
As of today, MS Office 2003 Standard is $369 US, Professional is
$469 US, cdw.com quoted. That is rather pricey, is it not?
Few people pay retail for it. You either get it as an OEM package
(usually about $100) or you get it as part of a volume or student
license agreement.
And if you get it via "student" licence, you can't use it for work,
can you Erik?
Of course you can. You are purchasing a full version, with all the
rights of the full version. You are simply getting an academic
discount.
Yet again you lie Funkenbusch:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/compare.mspx

What's in the Office 2003 Editions?
Published: September 30, 2003 | Updated: November 9, 2005

...

Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003 is for noncommercial use
only.
--
Rich Bell in thread: Things I couldn't do if I switched to Linux
Message-ID: <tB7Oe.182$***@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
I am connected to the Net using a Linksys WRT54G router. I don't
get hacked.
Jim Richardson
2005-11-14 02:16:45 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:00:10 -0600,
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by High Plains Thumper
As of today, MS Office 2003 Standard is $369 US, Professional is $469 US,
cdw.com quoted. That is rather pricey, is it not?
Few people pay retail for it. You either get it as an OEM package (usually
about $100) or you get it as part of a volume or student license agreement.
And if you get it via "student" licence, you can't use it for work, can
you Erik?
Of course you can. You are purchasing a full version, with all the rights
of the full version. You are simply getting an academic discount.
Not according to the licence info I have seen, MS explicitly prohibits
commercial activity (work) with the student licence.
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
As for OEMs Dell seems to charge $150 or so for basic MS-Office, not
pro, (includes Word, Excel and Outlook) This is all well and good *if*
you need a new computer, but if you don't, it's not particularly
helpful.
Not very many people have an existing computer they suddenly decide they
want to put Office on. They usually decide that when they buy the
computer.
Bullshit. If that were the case, MS wouldn't sell stand alone copies of
Office, and OOorg wouldn't get used at all.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDd/ONd90bcYOAWPYRAjOnAJ0VtNc5exEOop9Phzb/Mvi4zrXgLQCfcYwH
+qdyVpolPM2k8q3WbUrvT9M=
=6d+D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed. -- Lazarus Long
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-14 03:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Of course you can. You are purchasing a full version, with all the rights
of the full version. You are simply getting an academic discount.
Not according to the licence info I have seen, MS explicitly prohibits
commercial activity (work) with the student licence.
Not with Office. The older versions of Visual Studio had that restriction
(not the case anymore), perhaps that's what has you confused.
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Not very many people have an existing computer they suddenly decide they
want to put Office on. They usually decide that when they buy the
computer.
Bullshit. If that were the case, MS wouldn't sell stand alone copies of
Office, and OOorg wouldn't get used at all.
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
amosf
2005-11-14 04:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Not very many people have an existing computer they suddenly decide they
want to put Office on. They usually decide that when they buy the
computer.
Bullshit. If that were the case, MS wouldn't sell stand alone copies of
Office, and OOorg wouldn't get used at all.
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
MS seems to think most people steal office, at least outside the US. I tend
to agree...
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Mark Kent
2005-11-14 06:26:04 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by amosf
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Not very many people have an existing computer they suddenly decide they
want to put Office on. They usually decide that when they buy the
computer.
Bullshit. If that were the case, MS wouldn't sell stand alone copies of
Office, and OOorg wouldn't get used at all.
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
MS seems to think most people steal office, at least outside the US. I tend
to agree...
Our Mr Oberlin was advocating stealing software when moving jobs in a
previous posting. I think that this is a way of thinking for our MS
Windows astroturfers.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity."
-- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.
Sinister Midget
2005-11-14 09:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
I've never seen anybody pump deisel, and I've spent a significant
amount of time at the QuikTrip.
--
They teach classes on using Front Page? That's like a cooking class
where they teach you how to order a pizza!
Linønut
2005-11-14 14:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
I've never seen anybody pump deisel, and I've spent a significant
amount of time at the QuikTrip.
You're buying too many "tall boy" beers, eh? <grin>

Those quickie-marts really save one's ass when returning from a late
night session doing trouble-shooting on-site.
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
Sinister Midget
2005-11-15 00:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linønut
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
I've never seen anybody pump deisel, and I've spent a significant
amount of time at the QuikTrip.
You're buying too many "tall boy" beers, eh? <grin>
No, I don't drink. I go to check out the lunchtime crowd on work days,
being the dirty old man that I am. Some days are lean, some
overfloweth.
Post by Linønut
Those quickie-marts really save one's ass when returning from a late
night session doing trouble-shooting on-site.
I try not to buy /too/ much at any of them, but sometimes it jsut can't
be helped. Late at night it's the only game in town that isn't a long
drive away.
--
Are you scared of speed? Then try Windows.
ws
2005-11-14 14:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
I've never seen anybody pump deisel, and I've spent a significant
amount of time at the QuikTrip.
Methinks he's trying to hint that he doesn't see any because they all
"borrow" the office copy, or buy academic versions for "non-commercial"
use. ;-)

Of course, he will also observe not many buying Boxed Linux Distros or
Shrink-wrapped copies of OpenOffice... :D

Cheers,
WS
Sinister Midget
2005-11-15 00:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ws
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
I've never seen anybody pump deisel, and I've spent a significant
amount of time at the QuikTrip.
Methinks he's trying to hint that he doesn't see any because they all
"borrow" the office copy, or buy academic versions for "non-commercial"
use. ;-)
Of course, he will also observe not many buying Boxed Linux Distros or
Shrink-wrapped copies of OpenOffice... :D
I suppose Erik thinks the monpoly puts those things on the shelves for
show, and the businesses that could put things there that sell go along
just to be nice.
--
XP: The ME of NT.
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-15 00:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by ws
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
I've never seen anybody pump deisel, and I've spent a significant
amount of time at the QuikTrip.
Methinks he's trying to hint that he doesn't see any because they all
"borrow" the office copy, or buy academic versions for "non-commercial"
use. ;-)
Of course, he will also observe not many buying Boxed Linux Distros or
Shrink-wrapped copies of OpenOffice... :D
I suppose Erik thinks the monpoly puts those things on the shelves for
show, and the businesses that could put things there that sell go along
just to be nice.
Not at all. Microsoft *PAYS* for shelf space. There's no doubt about
that, it's known as endcapping or placement. They contribute co-op
advertising dollars to the stores, and they get premium placement.

Just like i've never seen anyone buy a copy of Windows on a store shelf.
I'm sure it happens, but nowhere near as often as other software gets sold.
The premium placement keeps Windows in the minds of consumers though, even
if they're not buying it there.
DFS
2005-11-15 00:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Just like i've never seen anyone buy a copy of Windows on a store
shelf. I'm sure it happens,
You can be sure: approx 62% of WinXP was bought in the stores
http://www.wininsider.com/news/?6935

I bought Win98SE and Win2K upgrades at retail. And, embarrassingly, ME
upgrade ($50). That was the last retail MS operating system I purchased.

Hang around a store (but don't leer too closely) the day Vista is put on
display. You'll see it flying off the shelves.
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-11-15 02:00:06 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
<***@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:53:42 -0500
Post by DFS
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Just like i've never seen anyone buy a copy of Windows on a store
shelf. I'm sure it happens,
You can be sure: approx 62% of WinXP was bought in the stores
http://www.wininsider.com/news/?6935
I bought Win98SE and Win2K upgrades at retail. And, embarrassingly, ME
upgrade ($50). That was the last retail MS operating system I purchased.
Hang around a store (but don't leer too closely) the day Vista is put on
display. You'll see it flying off the shelves.
As it should; it's the best Windows vaporware to date, and will
probably be the best Windows to date, once it meets its release date.
:-)

Of course, the old joke goes "The software said Win98 or better, so I
installed Linux". This is admittedly a matter of opinion.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
GreyCloud
2005-11-15 05:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Just like i've never seen anyone buy a copy of Windows on a store
shelf. I'm sure it happens,
You can be sure: approx 62% of WinXP was bought in the stores
http://www.wininsider.com/news/?6935
I bought Win98SE and Win2K upgrades at retail. And, embarrassingly, ME
upgrade ($50). That was the last retail MS operating system I purchased.
Same here. I upgraded the old HP twice... win98, then win98se. Then I
started hearing the news about ME and didn't upgrade. All I saw was a
once fast machine get slower with each upgrade.
Post by DFS
Hang around a store (but don't leer too closely) the day Vista is put on
display. You'll see it flying off the shelves.
Maybe. Depends on how it gets reviewed. Most people are now getting gun
shy over M$.
Mark Kent
2005-11-15 18:00:33 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by GreyCloud
Post by DFS
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Just like i've never seen anyone buy a copy of Windows on a store
shelf. I'm sure it happens,
You can be sure: approx 62% of WinXP was bought in the stores
http://www.wininsider.com/news/?6935
I bought Win98SE and Win2K upgrades at retail. And, embarrassingly, ME
upgrade ($50). That was the last retail MS operating system I purchased.
Same here. I upgraded the old HP twice... win98, then win98se. Then I
started hearing the news about ME and didn't upgrade. All I saw was a
once fast machine get slower with each upgrade.
Post by DFS
Hang around a store (but don't leer too closely) the day Vista is put on
display. You'll see it flying off the shelves.
Maybe. Depends on how it gets reviewed. Most people are now getting gun
shy over M$.
I wonder how many people MS can afford to pay for to 'buy' packages off
the shelves of large computing stores in order to give the impression
of a large amount of demand? If I were them, I'd certainly want to
put on a major show for the press, and I imagine that MS seniors would
be bordering on orgasm should they be able to get pictures of average
looking people rushing to pull boxes from shelves. It wouldn't cost
very much to stage, and would be a great piece of marketing.

So I won't be all that impressed if I see such pictures.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
I've run DOOM more in the last few days than I have the last few
months. I just love debugging ;-)
(Linus Torvalds)
mlw
2005-11-15 18:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Just like i've never seen anyone buy a copy of Windows on a store
shelf. I'm sure it happens,
You can be sure: approx 62% of WinXP was bought in the stores
http://www.wininsider.com/news/?6935
I bought Win98SE and Win2K upgrades at retail. And, embarrassingly, ME
upgrade ($50). That was the last retail MS operating system I purchased.
Hang around a store (but don't leer too closely) the day Vista is put on
display. You'll see it flying off the shelves.
Yup, you will, people just don't get it, their computer problems will not be
fixed by continually buying bad software.
DFS
2005-11-15 20:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Just like i've never seen anyone buy a copy of Windows on a store
shelf. I'm sure it happens,
You can be sure: approx 62% of WinXP was bought in the stores
http://www.wininsider.com/news/?6935
I bought Win98SE and Win2K upgrades at retail. And, embarrassingly,
ME upgrade ($50). That was the last retail MS operating system I
purchased.
Hang around a store (but don't leer too closely) the day Vista is
put on display. You'll see it flying off the shelves.
Yup, you will, people just don't get it, their computer problems will
not be fixed by continually buying bad software.
Nor will their problems be fixed by downloading bad OSS software.
mlw
2005-11-15 20:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Just like i've never seen anyone buy a copy of Windows on a store
shelf. I'm sure it happens,
You can be sure: approx 62% of WinXP was bought in the stores
http://www.wininsider.com/news/?6935
I bought Win98SE and Win2K upgrades at retail. And, embarrassingly,
ME upgrade ($50). That was the last retail MS operating system I
purchased.
Hang around a store (but don't leer too closely) the day Vista is
put on display. You'll see it flying off the shelves.
Yup, you will, people just don't get it, their computer problems will
not be fixed by continually buying bad software.
Nor will their problems be fixed by downloading bad OSS software.
I quite agree, they should restrict their downloads to the good OSS
software. Bad OSS software, like MySQL, should be avoided at all cost. The
good stuff, like Ubuntu, PostgreSQL, OpenOffice.org, etc. will help them in
their quest for safe and secure computing.
Linønut
2005-11-15 21:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by DFS
Hang around a store (but don't leer too closely) the day Vista is put on
display. You'll see it flying off the shelves.
Yup, you will, people just don't get it, their computer problems will not be
fixed by continually buying bad software.
You'll see those same people flying back to the store to return Windows
Vista when they find it won't run acceptably on their current computer.
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
`WarpKat
2005-11-14 16:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Of course you can. You are purchasing a full version, with all the rights
of the full version. You are simply getting an academic discount.
Not according to the licence info I have seen, MS explicitly prohibits
commercial activity (work) with the student licence.
Not with Office. The older versions of Visual Studio had that restriction
(not the case anymore), perhaps that's what has you confused.
When was VS a part of the question????
--
-- From #linuxfriends on irc.oftc.net
<`WarpKat> i see funkenbusch is back
<@Spicerun> `WarpKat: Who cares?
<tbird> hehe
<@Spicerun> He is a waste of breathable air space.
<`WarpKat> oh, i agree, but i missed him very very much.
<`WarpKat> it's not often that you find that special guy you just wanna
stab in the ear with a pencil.

-- I really did miss you, Erik... =:D
GreyCloud
2005-11-14 17:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by `WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Of course you can. You are purchasing a full version, with all the rights
of the full version. You are simply getting an academic discount.
Not according to the licence info I have seen, MS explicitly prohibits
commercial activity (work) with the student licence.
Not with Office. The older versions of Visual Studio had that restriction
(not the case anymore), perhaps that's what has you confused.
When was VS a part of the question????
I think he just got caught doing another sock-puppet-shuffle.
:-))
Tim Smith
2005-11-15 01:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
My copy for my Mac is the stand-alone version.
--
--Tim Smith
GreyCloud
2005-11-15 05:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I've never seen anyone buy the stand-alone versions of office, and i've
spent a significant amount of time in computer stores.
My copy for my Mac is the stand-alone version.
I dragged the trial ware to the trash can. Best removal tool I ever
saw. It's too damned expensive for what you get.
Timo Pirinen
2005-11-15 19:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Of course you can. You are purchasing a full version, with all the rights
of the full version. You are simply getting an academic discount.
Not according to the licence info I have seen, MS explicitly prohibits
commercial activity (work) with the student licence.
Not with Office.
Wrong.

You really should read Microsoft's Office 2003 Student and Teacher Edition
EULA or at least their product pages. A few tasty bits:

'Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003 is a personal learning license for
noncommercial, educational use only.'
<http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/student.mspx#EFC>

And

'You're restricted to using this product for non-commercial
(non-revenue-generating) use.'
<http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo/students/doyouqualify.mspx#END>
--
Timo Pirinen
***@dlc.fi
`WarpKat
2005-11-14 16:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by High Plains Thumper
As of today, MS Office 2003 Standard is $369 US, Professional is $469 US,
cdw.com quoted. That is rather pricey, is it not?
Few people pay retail for it. You either get it as an OEM package (usually
about $100) or you get it as part of a volume or student license agreement.
And if you get it via "student" licence, you can't use it for work, can
you Erik?
Of course you can. You are purchasing a full version, with all the rights
of the full version. You are simply getting an academic discount.
So basically you would condone a course of action that would violate the
EULA MS has created strictly for students and teachers? So if I was a
company with, say, 150 computers, that had nothing to do with any kind
of academics whatsoever, it's ok for me to purchase student-priced
copies of MS Office. That's what you are saying.

According to an FAQ on MS' site:
Q. Who is qualified to obtain Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003?
A. To obtain Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003, you must be a
qualified educational user or a household member of a qualified
educational user. Find out if you qualify and see other important
licensing details.

Now this link is fairly interesting:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo/students/doyouqualify.mspx

According to how I read that matrix and the notes attached, you can use
it, but not for work, which is the question posed.

I think you need to rethink your answer, Erik.
--
-- From #linuxfriends on irc.oftc.net
<`WarpKat> i see funkenbusch is back
<@Spicerun> `WarpKat: Who cares?
<tbird> hehe
<@Spicerun> He is a waste of breathable air space.
<`WarpKat> oh, i agree, but i missed him very very much.
<`WarpKat> it's not often that you find that special guy you just wanna
stab in the ear with a pencil.

-- I really did miss you, Erik... =:D
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-14 17:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by `WarpKat
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by High Plains Thumper
As of today, MS Office 2003 Standard is $369 US, Professional is $469 US,
cdw.com quoted. That is rather pricey, is it not?
Few people pay retail for it. You either get it as an OEM package (usually
about $100) or you get it as part of a volume or student license agreement.
And if you get it via "student" licence, you can't use it for work, can
you Erik?
Of course you can. You are purchasing a full version, with all the rights
of the full version. You are simply getting an academic discount.
So basically you would condone a course of action that would violate the
EULA MS has created strictly for students and teachers?
What are you talking about? I never suggested violating the EULA.
Post by `WarpKat
So if I was a
company with, say, 150 computers, that had nothing to do with any kind
of academics whatsoever, it's ok for me to purchase student-priced
copies of MS Office. That's what you are saying.
Of course not. Note above where I said "as part of a *VOLUME* *OR* student
license program. Volume licenses are for corporations. Student licenses
are for students or teachers, or relatives of such (living in the same
household).
Post by `WarpKat
According to how I read that matrix and the notes attached, you can use
it, but not for work, which is the question posed.
I think you need to rethink your answer, Erik.
I believe the definition of "non-commercial" doesn't include using to do
your work at home as an employee. Rather, it's designed to prevent it's
use by a corporation. Just because you produce a few reports at home with
it doesn't really qualify it as "commercial use".

On top of that, the commercial MS volume licenses allow you to install a
second copy on your laptop or at home, so long as the licenses are not in
use simultaneously.
Timo Pirinen
2005-11-15 20:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I believe the definition of "non-commercial" doesn't include using to do
your work at home as an employee.
You are wrong, it does.

Microsoft Office for Students and Teachers Edition 2003 Office EULA (section
2.5 b):
'No one may use this Software for any commercial purpose or in any way
related to the operation of any business enterprise or revenue-generating
activities.'
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Rather, it's designed to prevent it's
use by a corporation. Just because you produce a few reports at home with
it doesn't really qualify it as "commercial use".
It does. '...in any way related to the operation of any business...' So the
student and teacher edition is useless crippleware, crippled by its
license.
--
Timo Pirinen
***@dlc.fi
Sinister Midget
2005-11-11 10:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Sinister Midget
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
If your argument were to be believed, wouldn't it invalidate your argument
that office costs too much?
I had no idea there was a 'v' in 'support'.
--
Microsoft may not be the root of all evil, but it's not for lack of
trying.
Linønut
2005-11-11 12:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Sinister Midget
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
If your argument were to be believed, wouldn't it invalidate your argument
that office costs too much?
It would also invalidate any argument that music, movies, books,
Rational Unified Suite, Partition Magic (harrumph), etc. cost too much.

Hell, you can get cars for free, if you know how to break into one and
hot-wire it.
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
`WarpKat
2005-11-11 15:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by `WarpKat
And just HOW does one get Outlook, Erik? It sure as hell doesn't
squeeze out of a sysadmin's ass, now does it?
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
Gimme a torrent link. I seriously need to get my authenticated cracked
copy today!
--
-- From #linuxfriends on irc.oftc.net
<`WarpKat> i see funkenbusch is back
<@Spicerun> `WarpKat: Who cares?
<tbird> hehe
<@Spicerun> He is a waste of breathable air space.
<`WarpKat> oh, i agree, but i missed him very very much.
<`WarpKat> it's not often that you find that special guy you just wanna
stab in the ear with a pencil.

-- I really did miss you, Erik... =:D
Sinister Midget
2005-11-11 16:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by `WarpKat
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by `WarpKat
And just HOW does one get Outlook, Erik? It sure as hell doesn't
squeeze out of a sysadmin's ass, now does it?
You get it via bittorrent, a warez site or usenet warez, the way most
of the other honest Windross users get it.
Gimme a torrent link. I seriously need to get my authenticated cracked
copy today!
http://www.torrentreactor.net/index.php

Sorry, but since I'm not in the market I don't have a more specific
link. But there ought to be at least /one/ link somewhere on there.
Pratically everything else seems to be.
--
Ever noticed how fast Windows runs? Me neither.
r***@usa.net
2005-11-10 18:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
__/ [DFS] on Thursday 10 November 2005 15:34 \__
As a home user, will you be willing to pay the price? As a
corporation, will you be able to bear the cost? As an
individual/corporation, will youever be able to migrate your data
elsewhere when the software is no longer affordable?
The answer to all 3 is "Yes, of course!"
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10 years now.
When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't expensive? In volume
licensing, I expect Office costs no more than $50 per employee per year.
Let's see, will that $50/employee/year be for MS-Office Professional
and be valid on ANY machine that employee uses? Can he use it on his
home machine? Can he use it on his laptop? How about his corporate
desktop?

My guess is that this price would be for MS-Office Standard edition,
much less functionality. Word, Excel, Powerpoint - not much else.

My guess is that if my employee wants to work from home I will either
have to:
A. Buy him a laptop (extra $1200 or more)
B. Reemburse him for a copy of Office (not at the discounted price)
C. Purchase second copies for EVERY Employee.
D. Force him to do all of the work, at his desk, in the office -
including overtime.

With Open Office:
Let him download Open Office into his corporate desktop from the
corporate mirror.
Let him download Open Office onto his home machine.
Give him a memory stick for $20 - and let him take that report home
so that he can
finish it after he's had dinner with his family and tucked the kids
into bed.

Which company would you rather work for?
A. The one who wants you to work 8:00 AM to 10 PM to meet
deadlines all the time?
B. The one who makes your buy your own PC but tells you that you
must pay
several hundred dollars for software?
C. The one who lets you use your own PC and lets you use software
that's free so
that you can work from home at your convenience, or in a more
comfortable
environment?

If you answered C. Then Open Document is a huge blessing for you.
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
Your mind continues to wander in oblivion. The only reason some
people stick to Office is because licences have not expired yet
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that as the world ignores OO.
So far, over 100 million copies of OO have been downloaded. Many of
those downloaded have been copied to CD-ROMs and passed around, been
placed on corporate file servers, or placed on private mirrors.

Even Microsoft would love to be "ignored" like that.
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
and since OpenOffice is *yet* to gain its deserved reputation.
Oh, I think it will one day gain the reputation it deserves.
Things seem to be looking pretty good so far.
The download rates are increasing every day.

Again, Microsoft would love to have anything be that popular.
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
Hey, look! Published today...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5942913.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
Big guns in the software industry are massing behind
OpenDocument as government customers show more interest
in open-source alternatives to Microsoft?s desktop
software.
Cool. Big guns massed behind Linux a while ago, and it's not exactly taking
over the Microsoft desktop world, now is it?
Most of the big players were rallied around Linux as a server platform,
and the results are quite impressive. Linux has captured over 1/2 the
installations previously held by Windows NT 4.0 servers, and has done
quite well at replacing many UNIX (Solaris, AIX, HP_UX) servers. In
fact, Solaris, AIX, and HP_UX now offer Linux compatibility as a means
of keeping their customers and capturing Linux projects that have
outgrown Linux on 32 bit Intel. Linux has over 50% of the server
market in less than 5 years. That's a pretty big rally.

Nearly everyone uses Linux and Open Source every day now. It's hard to
imagine not having Google, not checking the Weather Channel, or not
having Yahoo, E-Bay, or Amazon - all of which use Open Source
technology for strategic purposes.

Even Microsoft uses Linux to buffer and load-balance the accesses to
their huge array of Windows "back-end" servers.

And what about "Linux Appliances".
There aren't many homes that don't have at least one or two Linux
appliances.
The cable tuner, the cable modem or DSL modem, the WiFi hub, the
router, even the networked storage external drive - all Linux. They
might even have Linux in a wireless printer server, even their cell
phone might be running Linux.

Isn't Palm coming out with a PalmOS based on Linux?
Sharp already has a Linux powered PDA - several in fact.
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
PS - just because you authored a book on Office does not make it
formidable to us. Wishful thinking ain't reality either.
You're thinking of a different DFS. The only thing I author are
hard-hitting, smackdown posts to cola.
DFS is a True WinTroll
posts Pro-Microsoft articles in COLA,
completely anonymous
nicknamed DoFuS
DFS
2005-11-10 22:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
__/ [DFS] on Thursday 10 November 2005 15:34 \__
As a home user, will you be willing to pay the price? As a
corporation, will you be able to bear the cost? As an
individual/corporation, will youever be able to migrate your data
elsewhere when the software is no longer affordable?
The answer to all 3 is "Yes, of course!"
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10
years now. When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't
expensive? In volume licensing, I expect Office costs no more than
$50 per employee per year.
Let's see, will that $50/employee/year be for MS-Office Professional
and be valid on ANY machine that employee uses? Can he use it on his
home machine? Can he use it on his laptop? How about his corporate
desktop?
My guess is that this price would be for MS-Office Standard edition,
much less functionality. Word, Excel, Powerpoint - not much else.
I'll try to find out from one of my clients. Every employee has Office Pro.
Post by r***@usa.net
My guess is that if my employee wants to work from home I will either
A. Buy him a laptop (extra $1200 or more)
Why? Just use laptops as your main work machines.
Post by r***@usa.net
B. Reemburse him for a copy of Office (not at the discounted
price) C. Purchase second copies for EVERY Employee.
D. Force him to do all of the work, at his desk, in the office -
including overtime.
Let him download Open Office into his corporate desktop from the
corporate mirror.
Let him download Open Office onto his home machine.
Give him a memory stick for $20 - and let him take that report home
so that he can finish it after he's had dinner with his family and tucked
the
Post by r***@usa.net
kids into bed.
What if he's on a diet and unmarried?
Post by r***@usa.net
Which company would you rather work for?
A. The one who wants you to work 8:00 AM to 10 PM to meet
deadlines all the time?
B. The one who makes your buy your own PC but tells you that you
must pay several hundred dollars for software?
C. The one who lets you use your own PC and lets you use software
that's free so that you can work from home at your convenience, or in a
more
Post by r***@usa.net
comfortable environment?
If you answered C. Then Open Document is a huge blessing for you.
I do answer C, but the answer is to bring your office laptop (your primary
work machine) home with you.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
Your mind continues to wander in oblivion. The only reason some
people stick to Office is because licences have not expired yet
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that as the world ignores OO.
So far, over 100 million copies of OO have been downloaded.
Once again you try to slip a Rex Ballard lie past everyone.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39231617,00.htm
Post by r***@usa.net
Many of
those downloaded have been copied to CD-ROMs and passed around, been
placed on corporate file servers, or placed on private mirrors.
Even Microsoft would love to be "ignored" like that.
I've downloaded OO at least 5 times myself. Each time is to load it up and
see if it's still as slow as ever. I'm never disappointed.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
and since OpenOffice is *yet* to gain its deserved reputation.
Oh, I think it will one day gain the reputation it deserves.
Things seem to be looking pretty good so far.
The download rates are increasing every day.
Again, Microsoft would love to have anything be that popular.
Sure - if people paid for it.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
Hey, look! Published today...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5942913.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
Big guns in the software industry are massing behind
OpenDocument as government customers show more interest
in open-source alternatives to Microsoft?s desktop
software.
Cool. Big guns massed behind Linux a while ago, and it's not
exactly taking over the Microsoft desktop world, now is it?
Most of the big players were rallied around Linux as a server
platform, and the results are quite impressive. Linux has captured
over 1/2 the installations previously held by Windows NT 4.0 servers,
and has done quite well at replacing many UNIX (Solaris, AIX, HP_UX)
servers. In fact, Solaris, AIX, and HP_UX now offer Linux
compatibility as a means of keeping their customers and capturing
Linux projects that have outgrown Linux on 32 bit Intel. Linux has
over 50% of the server market in less than 5 years. That's a pretty
big rally.
It is, except the server market isn't exactly a big market.
Post by r***@usa.net
Nearly everyone uses Linux and Open Source every day now. It's hard
to imagine not having Google, not checking the Weather Channel, or not
having Yahoo, E-Bay, or Amazon - all of which use Open Source
technology for strategic purposes.
Even Microsoft uses Linux to buffer and load-balance the accesses to
their huge array of Windows "back-end" servers.
And what about "Linux Appliances".
There aren't many homes that don't have at least one or two Linux
appliances.
The cable tuner, the cable modem or DSL modem, the WiFi hub, the
router, even the networked storage external drive - all Linux. They
might even have Linux in a wireless printer server, even their cell
phone might be running Linux.
Isn't Palm coming out with a PalmOS based on Linux?
Sharp already has a Linux powered PDA - several in fact.
It's spreading like a virus.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by Roy Schestowitz
PS - just because you authored a book on Office does not make it
formidable to us. Wishful thinking ain't reality either.
You're thinking of a different DFS. The only thing I author are
hard-hitting, smackdown posts to cola.
DFS is a True WinTroll
posts Pro-Microsoft articles in COLA,
completely anonymous
nicknamed DoFuS
Why shouldn't I post pro-MS articles here? MS is one of the top 2 topics on
cola. And a few non-pro-Linux posts makes for a better newsgroup, and more
balanced discussions.

And it's spelled DooFuS, if you feel you have to use it.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2005-11-11 02:35:14 UTC
Permalink
DFS wrote:
[snip]
Post by DFS
Business have been paying for MS Office by the $billions for 10 years now.
When will you nutcases understand MS Office isn't expensive?
Do you realize how humorous these two sentences look right next to each
other.
Post by DFS
In volume licensing, I expect Office costs no more than $50 per employee per year.
The initial cost of acquiring s/w is a minor part of its TCO. This is
particularly true of Microsoft apps.
And that's for things that can be accounted for easily. How do you put a
price on getting locked into Microsoft's product upgrade cycle?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:***@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail. -- Gore Vidal
r***@usa.net
2005-11-10 18:22:57 UTC
Permalink
I followed a couple of links to get directly to the links for Open
Document format.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office

This is the specification in PDF format.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12572/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf
And
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12573/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.sxw

The whole document is about 700 pages, and is easier to read than most
Microsoft printed documentation.

Does Microsoft offer anything remotely close to such detailed
specifications which are as easily accessed?

Note that you don't have to sign a nondisclosure agreement, submit an
"application", or even "register" to access these specifications.

Just looking at it for about 30 minutes, I began to see possibilities
for quickly creating scripted documents using this format/protocol.

I could capture information from structured data I could parse in PERL
or Java, convert that into information that can be delivered as a
presentation, AND as a document, and as a diagram, without having to
manually manage the documents using cut/paste.

This could be a HUGE time saver!
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-10 21:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@usa.net
Does Microsoft offer anything remotely close to such detailed
specifications which are as easily accessed?
5 seconds with google would have found it.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=FE118952-3547-420A-A412-00A2662442D9&displaylang=en

While this is in MSI format, you can use any of the open source CAB
extration utilities to extract the documents.

Also, here's some short tutorials on using office XML

http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/10/21/483619.aspx
Jericho Swarm
2005-11-15 19:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Why do Microsoft apologists always refer to blogs or other winsock
puppets as their source?
Blogs are completely worthless when it comes to credibility.
Gordon Burgess-Parker
2005-11-10 16:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.
A very large number of organisations didn't bother to upgrade to Office
2003 from Office 2002 - the "additional functionality" wasn't worth the
effort and the cost. What makes you think they are going to go to Office 12?
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Reply address is a spamtrap
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!
DFS
2005-11-10 16:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by DFS
For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.
A very large number of organisations didn't bother to upgrade to
Office 2003 from Office 2002 - the "additional functionality" wasn't
worth the effort and the cost. What makes you think they are going to
go to Office 12?
I didn't say they were.

Except for Access, I myself haven't upgraded from Office 2000. I usually
skip a generation, and the next version is looking ripe to buy.
TheLetterK
2005-11-10 17:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the fact is
their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental research in computer
science, and publishes a lot of it for the benefit of everyone.
MS Research should have the following logo:
"Stealing well-discussed ideas and calling them ours!"

Yeah, they put a face to lots of ideas that most people throw out as
unwieldy, but that doesn't make them innovators.
Post by DFS
And their products are continually improved.
Continuous improvement is only a part of the equasion--you need
continuous *and speedy* improvement.
Post by DFS
For instance, in the face of
little competition on the desktop database side (FileMaker Pro is about it),
the new version of Access 12 is filled to the brim with new ideas and
features.
FileMaker Pro is hardly the only flatfile database out there.
Post by DFS
http://blogs.msdn.com/access/
For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.
For me it's an 'I wouldn't even consider buy'.
Post by DFS
OpenOffice will be playing catch-up for the next 3 years, of course, until
the next release of MS Office, at which time the OO developers are forced to
hunker down again so people will quit chuckling at their efforts.
OOo has a faster development cycle than Office does. It will win in the end.
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
Snit
2005-11-14 07:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheLetterK
Post by DFS
For instance, in the face of
little competition on the desktop database side (FileMaker Pro is about it),
the new version of Access 12 is filled to the brim with new ideas and
features.
FileMaker Pro is hardly the only flatfile database out there.
FileMaker Pro has not been flat file since version 2. Version 8 just
came out. You are just a wee bit behind the times. :)


--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
moments that take our breath away.
TheLetterK
2005-11-15 20:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by TheLetterK
Post by DFS
For instance, in the face of
little competition on the desktop database side (FileMaker Pro is about it),
the new version of Access 12 is filled to the brim with new ideas and
features.
FileMaker Pro is hardly the only flatfile database out there.
FileMaker Pro has not been flat file since version 2. Version 8 just
came out. You are just a wee bit behind the times. :)
In which case there is absolutely no reason to be using it, at all.
Post by Snit
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
moments that take our breath away.
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
Snit
2005-11-15 20:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheLetterK
Post by Snit
Post by TheLetterK
For instance, in the face of little competition on the desktop database
side (FileMaker Pro is about it), the new version of Access 12 is filled to
the brim with new ideas and features.
FileMaker Pro is hardly the only flatfile database out there.
FileMaker Pro has not been flat file since version 2. Version 8 just
came out. You are just a wee bit behind the times. :)
In which case there is absolutely no reason to be using it, at all.
No reason to use which, version 2 or version 8. If all you have is version
2 and it serves your needs, then it is fine... but I would agree that if
reasonably possible one should upgrade to version 8... it is much, much
better.
--
"There is nothing I understand." - TheLetterK



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
tab
2005-11-10 17:26:15 UTC
Permalink
What do you HAVE TO HAVE RIGHT NOW, that you did not have before?
This GOTTA HAVE IS, is nuts.

Are you burn't out from your job????
Gordon Burgess-Parker
2005-11-10 17:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by tab
What do you HAVE TO HAVE RIGHT NOW, that you did not have before?
This GOTTA HAVE IS, is nuts.
Are you burn't out from your job????
I like that - one wintroll slagging off another!
Hooray!
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Reply address is a spamtrap
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!
7
2005-11-10 18:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker
Post by tab
What do you HAVE TO HAVE RIGHT NOW, that you did not have before?
This GOTTA HAVE IS, is nuts.
Are you burn't out from your job????
I like that - one wintroll slagging off another!
Hooray!
I determine Tabbie emphirically to be
a Sun$ bum while DFS is a genuine windi bum.

Thats why they can slag off each other.
DFS
2005-11-10 17:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by tab
What do you HAVE TO HAVE RIGHT NOW, that you did not have before?
This GOTTA HAVE IS, is nuts.
Are you asking me? You need to learn to quote from the previous post.

If you developed Access systems, and you read what's coming in v12
http://blogs.msdn.com/access/ you would find many things you HAVE TO HAVE
RIGHT NOW.
Post by tab
Are you burn't out from your job????
Yes.
7
2005-11-10 18:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the fact
is their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental research in
computer science, and publishes a lot of it for the benefit of everyone.
And their products are continually improved. For instance, in the face of
little competition on the desktop database side (FileMaker Pro is about
it), the new version of Access 12 is filled to the brim with new ideas and
features.
http://blogs.msdn.com/access/
For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.
OpenOffice will be playing catch-up for the next 3 years, of course, until
the next release of MS Office, at which time the OO developers are forced
to hunker down again so people will quit chuckling at their efforts.
Which version of GPL is it released under?
Tim Smith
2005-11-11 02:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Which version of GPL is it released under?
3.7
--
--Tim Smith
Peter
2005-11-10 21:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.
If one is running Office 97, then why change? Office 97 does the job
perfectly adequately for most users. If at some point Office 97 refuses to
install when upgrading your machine, then simply install Open Office.
Might as well go the whole hog then and dump Windows.

Office 12 would just be money down the drain.
DFS
2005-11-10 23:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by DFS
For me it's a must buy. If the rest of Office 12 shows similar
improvements, it's a must buy too.
If one is running Office 97, then why change? Office 97 does the job
perfectly adequately for most users.
Yes - if perfectly adequately is all you require. I'm looking for some
sizzle.
Post by Peter
If at some point Office 97
refuses to install when upgrading your machine, then simply install
Open Office. Might as well go the whole hog then and dump Windows.
Why be so rude to your computer?
Post by Peter
Office 12 would just be money down the drain.
Says you. It appears to have many useful features I'll enjoy.
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-11-10 21:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the fact is
their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental research in computer
science, and publishes a lot of it for the benefit of everyone.
Most people really don't even realize when they're using something
Microsoft invented. Use gmail? google maps? You're using technology
Microsoft invented.

Specifically, they invented teh XmlHttpRequest function, and they invented
the technique now called AJAX that google uses so extensively. They first
implemented it in Outlook Web Access years ago.
Sinister Midget
2005-11-11 01:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the fact is
their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental research in computer
science, and publishes a lot of it for the benefit of everyone.
Most people really don't even realize when they're using something
Microsoft invented. Use gmail? google maps? You're using technology
Microsoft invented.
Specifically, they invented teh XmlHttpRequest function, and they invented
the technique now called AJAX that google uses so extensively. They first
implemented it in Outlook Web Access years ago.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And they invented the internet. And they invented the
toothbrush. And they invented the CRT. And they invented to worm, the
trojan, the virus, the monopoly and the perpetual motion machine.

They /didn't/ invent Tidy Bowl. But they created a huge need for it.
--
Esbot: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Ramon F Herrera
2005-11-11 05:01:57 UTC
Permalink
[DFS:]
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the fact is
their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental research in computer
science, and publishes a lot of it for the benefit of everyone.
If MS is soo distinguished at research, how come we can easily observe
the following relationship:

- At the best universities, teaching and research are based on
Unix/Linux, while MS is looked upon with contempt and disdain.

- MS's products on the other hand are very popular at the lesser
schools and Mickey Mouse community colleges.

Consider MIT -birthplace of OSS, where even the curriculum is being
"open sourced"- Berkeley, Stanford, CMU, CalTech, et al.

All this, despite the truckloads of money thrown at universities,
trying to buy their loyalty, and brainbrash their graduates, like they
did with Boston University (this one did inhale).

-Ramon F Herrera
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Tim Smith
2005-11-12 02:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
[DFS:]
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the fact is
their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental research in computer
science, and publishes a lot of it for the benefit of everyone.
If MS is soo distinguished at research, how come we can easily observe
- At the best universities, teaching and research are based on
Unix/Linux, while MS is looked upon with contempt and disdain.
Yet many famous names in computing have moved to MS Research. Examples:

Gordon Bell
Jim Blinn
Jim Kajiya
Tony Hoare
Michael H. Freedman

Even a cursory glance at the journals or conference proceedings from any
major area of computer science will show a strong presence of papers
from people at MS Research, and those papers are frequently cited by
later researchers.


...
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Consider MIT -birthplace of OSS, where even the curriculum is being
"open sourced"- Berkeley, Stanford, CMU, CalTech, et al.
It's spelled "Caltech", not "CalTech".
--
--Tim Smith
Ramon F Herrera
2005-11-12 11:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Smith
Yet many famous names in computing have moved to MS Research.
How about taking a look a the list of Turing Award winners?

-RFH
Ramon F Herrera
2005-11-12 11:32:30 UTC
Permalink
http://www.acm.org/awards/taward.html

-RFH
Ramon F Herrera
2005-11-12 11:53:28 UTC
Permalink
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/ffc967dbabaed30f/4f91d1bda3711a7e?q=***@conexus.net&rnum=41#4f91d1bda3711a7e

-RFH
Ramon F Herrera
2005-11-12 11:58:07 UTC
Permalink
[re-post]

I was clicking on the recent high tech visas news, when I bumped
into this interview, which took place about a year ago at MIT.

http://news.com.com/Gates+goes+to+college/2008-7345_3-5167499.html

Gates first goes to say that many CS students don't even know who are
the recipients of the Turing Award, and then he claims that Alan Turing
was an inmigrant that came to the US. Gee, and I always thought that
Turing did all his work in England, until he commited suicide.

There's other funny comment by this "visionary" that failed to see the
Internet. When asked about the enthusiasm generated by Linux and open
source, he says something like: "oh, that's only overseas, and they are
very few, plus it doesn't matter because people don't work on kernels
and assembly language anymore".

So, all those people involved in open source out there, and it turns
out that they are just doing "kernels"? So you guys are actually
writing assembly language?

Frankly, I think that Gates was in the wrong place when he decided to
go looking for CS graduates at MIT. Generally speaking intelligent
people have a way of having open minds and are always looking for real
solutions. If you take those graduates to Redmont and tell them: "by
the way, all those great solutions that you came up with, will not be
included in Windows because we need it to have a constant level of
buggyness and non-portability so people will be constantly upgrading",
well, many of them will just say to Microsoft:

"hell, no, we won't go".

-Ramon F Herrera
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Tim Smith
2005-11-12 15:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Tim Smith
Yet many famous names in computing have moved to MS Research.
How about taking a look a the list of Turing Award winners?
How about looking at the list of Field's Medalists? Or MacArthur
Foundation grant winners? Or the list of people elected to their
national academies of science or engineering?
--
--Tim Smith
Ramon F Herrera
2005-11-12 16:54:10 UTC
Permalink
[Tim Smith:]
Post by Tim Smith
How about looking at the list of Field's Medalists? Or MacArthur
Foundation grant winners? Or the list of people elected to their
national academies of science or engineering?
All right. Let's suppose we look at those lists. What is your claim
about them? My claim is that there is much more teaching and research
being done in universities using Linux and Unix (power point and word
processing to write a thesis excluded). In fact, there is a direct
correlation between the quality and prestige of the university and
their usage of non-Windows OS. There are some exceptions to this rule,
such as Boston Universitiy which -surprise!- got a fat grant from MS
when MIT refused to modify their curricula to make it Windows oriented.

So, what kind of trend do you expect us to see among the recipients of
those prestigious awards??

-Ramon
Tim Smith
2005-11-12 18:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Tim Smith
How about looking at the list of Field's Medalists? Or MacArthur
Foundation grant winners? Or the list of people elected to their
national academies of science or engineering?
All right. Let's suppose we look at those lists. What is your claim
about them? My claim is that there is much more teaching and research
being done in universities using Linux and Unix (power point and word
processing to write a thesis excluded). In fact, there is a direct
correlation between the quality and prestige of the university and
their usage of non-Windows OS. There are some exceptions to this rule,
such as Boston Universitiy which -surprise!- got a fat grant from MS
when MIT refused to modify their curricula to make it Windows oriented.
So, what kind of trend do you expect us to see among the recipients of
those prestigious awards??
But that has nothing to do with the quality of work done at MS Research.
You originally offered the claim about Universities in an attempt to
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Tim Smith
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the
fact is their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental
research in computer science, and publishes a lot of it for the
benefit of everyone.
Your argument was on the order of "top schools use more Unix than
Windows, therefore MS Research doesn't do fundamental research".

Examine lists such as Field's Medalists, members of National Academies,
and most other similar lists, and you'll find that MS Research is
disproportionately represented. Examine research journals and
conference proceedings, and you'll find plenty of publications by MS
researches, and these publications are frequently cited.

By every measure used to rank research facilities, MS Research is near
the top, except for one: absolute size.
--
--Tim Smith
Ramon F Herrera
2005-11-12 21:09:20 UTC
Permalink
[Tim:]
Post by Tim Smith
Your argument was on the order of "top schools use more Unix than
Windows, therefore MS Research doesn't do fundamental research".
It is so easy to win an argument if you are allowed to put words in the
other person's mouth (in this case, keyboard).

-RFH
Tim Smith
2005-11-13 01:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
[Tim:]
Post by Tim Smith
Your argument was on the order of "top schools use more Unix than
Windows, therefore MS Research doesn't do fundamental research".
It is so easy to win an argument if you are allowed to put words in the
other person's mouth (in this case, keyboard).
-RFH
It was this post of yours:

<***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

You quoted DFS:
----------
[DFS:]
Post by Ramon F Herrera
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the fact is
their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental research in computer
science, and publishes a lot of it for the benefit of everyone.
----------

and responded with this:
----------
If MS is soo distinguished at research, how come we can easily observe
the following relationship:

- At the best universities, teaching and research are based on
Unix/Linux, while MS is looked upon with contempt and disdain.

- MS's products on the other hand are very popular at the lesser
schools and Mickey Mouse community colleges.
----------

It sure seems to be offering the use of Unix in the best universities as
a refutation of DFS's claim that MS does fundamental research and
publishes it.
--
--Tim Smith
DFS
2005-11-12 23:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
[DFS:]
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the
fact is their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental
research in computer science, and publishes a lot of it for the
benefit of everyone.
If MS is soo distinguished at research, how come we can easily observe
- At the best universities, teaching and research are based on
Unix/Linux, while MS is looked upon with contempt and disdain.
That's a silly question to which you already know the answer. Think about
it and get back to me.

Being a Linux bozo, you willingly ignore the fact that many of the brightest
comp sci graduates go to work for Microsoft.
Post by Ramon F Herrera
- MS's products on the other hand are very popular at the lesser
schools and Mickey Mouse community colleges.
They're also popular everywhere in the world. MS Windows is the most widely
used computer OS. MS Office is the most widely used productivity software.
I expect the MS mouse is the most popular mouse in the world (I have a nice
one right here... click click), and I expect MS keyboards are right up there
too (I also have a nice one here - the MS Comfort Curve 2000... tap, tap)
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Consider MIT -birthplace of OSS, where even the curriculum is being
"open sourced"- Berkeley, Stanford, CMU, CalTech, et al.
That OpenCourseWare initiative is an incredible resource for the world.
Post by Ramon F Herrera
All this, despite the truckloads of money thrown at universities,
trying to buy their loyalty, and brainbrash their graduates, like they
did with Boston University (this one did inhale).
MS brainwashing? Ridiculous. If anyone is brainwashed it's open sourcers
and Linux users. Have you ever listened to Linux users? They're like a
rabid cult slavishly devoted to hating MS.
Post by Ramon F Herrera
-Ramon F Herrera
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Home of John Kerry. 'nuff said.
Kier
2005-11-12 23:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Ramon F Herrera
[DFS:]
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the
fact is their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental
research in computer science, and publishes a lot of it for the
benefit of everyone.
If MS is soo distinguished at research, how come we can easily observe
- At the best universities, teaching and research are based on
Unix/Linux, while MS is looked upon with contempt and disdain.
That's a silly question to which you already know the answer. Think about
it and get back to me.
Being a Linux bozo, you willingly ignore the fact that many of the brightest
comp sci graduates go to work for Microsoft.
Sadly, money talks. That's what MS has over the competition.
--
Kier
DFS
2005-11-13 00:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by DFS
Post by Ramon F Herrera
[DFS:]
Post by DFS
You MS-naysayers continually bleat about MS not innovating, but the
fact is their gigantic MS Research arm does lots of fundamental
research in computer science, and publishes a lot of it for the
benefit of everyone.
If MS is soo distinguished at research, how come we can easily
- At the best universities, teaching and research are based on
Unix/Linux, while MS is looked upon with contempt and disdain.
That's a silly question to which you already know the answer. Think
about it and get back to me.
Being a Linux bozo, you willingly ignore the fact that many of the
brightest comp sci graduates go to work for Microsoft.
Sadly, money talks. That's what MS has over the competition.
Why is that sad? Don't you go to work for money?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...