Visual Tour of Office 2007 Beta 2 495
feminazi writes "Computerworld has a review and visual tour of the newest installment of Office. No more toolbars & menus; those have been replace with 'ribbons.' Of the various products in the suite, Word is the most changed. Styles are easier to invoke, but no easier to create or understand. A couple of the redeeming characteristics is the ability to save as PDF and XPS and an improved Track Changes. Bigger spreadsheets are available in Excel -- over 1 million rows and over 16,000 columns per worksheet -- and new and better visualization abilities. Lots new in Outlook including multiple calendars and direct support for RSS feeds. And the apps all work together better than before. From the article: 'The major change in Beta 2 was the introduction of Office SharePoint Server.' This means that Sharepoint Server is required, but it also means more & better collaboration and advanced search abilities are supported."
Requires Sharepoint Server? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Requires Sharepoint Server? (Score:3, Informative)
May be misleading but so far if you want to utilise all the features of this office package you will probably need:
Exchange
Share point
Rights Management
Active Directory
Plus the associated CALS, and OS licenses, the technical staff, the hardware and the training for your user base. Oh and there are NO alternatives for use with MS Office (correct me if I am wrong), Personally I'd
Re:Requires Sharepoint Server? (Score:5, Informative)
Exchange
Share point
Rights Management
Active Directory
Plus the associated CALS, and OS licenses, the technical staff, the hardware and the training for your user base. Oh and there are NO alternatives for use with MS Office (correct me if I am wrong), Personally I'd rather build my own out of the bits that are available in OpenSource land, use the features that I (my company) needs and lump the rest, but thats not everyones cup of tea. All I really want in life is Visio for linux, or a decent clone, preferably with the network architect toolkit or similar.
Um, No... Oh and also NO....
Where do people get this information? Are you really in the beta, because if you are, meet me in the groups and we can discuss this, because what you wrote is about as insane as it gets.
Just for an example:
Outlook works and 'collaborates' quite well with ANY Mail server, you can eve do Office forms, Replies and a lot of the other features, including LDAP support all with a simple and even FREE mail server softare. If your Mail server supports POP3 or IMAP, you are quite set with Outlook.
Sure Outlook is ALSO an exchange client and will use the exchange features, but NEITHER require each other, understand?
As for these others:
Share point
Rights Management
Active Directory
Do you even know what you are talking about? Active Directory is something not even used by Office unless you are running a SERVER VERSION of Office, which 99.9% of the people using Office do not. Also the 'Active Directory' requirements are NOT even exclusive to Windows Server Active Directory Server.
As for the CALS, do you NOT realize that each VERSION of Office is its own CAL? That is what it is, a client application, there are no additional server CALs needed. Even Outlook qualifies to be a full CAL for Exchange.
You need to read up quite a bit before making outlandish posts.
Oh, also you state 'rights management' WTF are you even talking about?
Re:Requires Sharepoint Server? (Score:3, Informative)
You need to read up quite a bit before making outlandish posts.
As do you. Buying a copy of Office is NOT the same as buying an Exchange CAL. You're horribly confusing software licenses with client access licenses... And further, if you use Sharepoint or Exchange, or other authenticat
NOT quite TRUE (in caps) (Score:3, Interesting)
Pine 'colaborates' quite well also (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, no it doesn't. That's like saying Pine can collaborates quite well with any mail client.
"if your Mail server supports POP3 or IMAP, you are quite set with Outlook."
If by set you mean using only half of what Outlook offers I guess we agree. If everyone was quite "set" by using ANY mail server with Outlook why the heck do you think the OSS community has been going nuts for over 6 years trying to make a real exchange alternative?
The grandpa
Office 2007 must be a dupe! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yah. I also noticed this:
TFA: "Among the more significant new features: Excel 2007's new ways of visualizing data. For example, you can use conditional formatting to color the background of cells based on their value..."
That's present at least in Excel 2003, and I think maybe as far back as 2000.
How can someone review Office 2007 for what's new if they don't even know what's in the older versions?
I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a laundry list, but I don't think the stains will come out:
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:2, Funny)
But I REALLY need to let Nina in Corporate Accounts Payable be able to =SUM(A1:A1000000)...
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:3, Funny)
Corporate accounts payable, Nina speaking. Just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Nina speaking. Just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Nina speaking. Just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Nina speaking. Just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Nina speaking. Just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Nina speaking. Just a moment.
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the IT guys you have to worry about, it's the beancounters.
And yes, we had several databases that started as an useable Excel spreadsheet and blossomed into ridiculous rowcounts. And no, management wouldn't let us convert to a real database, Excel was the only approved file format in accounting.
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:5, Interesting)
Data processing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Data processing (Score:3)
You can't assume tools are necessarily going to be used the way you intend them, so don't include arbitrary limits.
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:5, Funny)
Sold!
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:5, Insightful)
You are aware the previous limit in Excel was 65k rows. There's a lot of area between 65k and 1M which is handled better by a spreadsheet rather than a database.
MS expanding the limit (granted 10 years overdue) and offering the flexibility is a good thing no matter how you may want to spin it otherwise.
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:5, Insightful)
If the data set is better handled by a spreadsheet than a database, then it shouldn't matter how many records there are.
Inversely, if a data set is better handled by a database than a spreadsheet, then it shouldn't matter how few records there are.
They're different tools, and they serve different purposes. I have to wonder where this problem came from where people so often use the wrong tool for the job. Is it because Excel and Access both display data in grid format? Is it because spreadsheets made headway into personal computing space long before RDBMS's did?
It's fine and dandy that Microsoft is re-compiling the Excel source with larger values for the MAX_ROWS and MAX_COLS constants. But there's no technical reason why such fixed limits should still even exist anymore. Can't they devise a way to allow spreadsheets to be limited in dimensions only by the available resources of the machine? Or will we have to wait and buy Office 2010 to get the ability to have 32,000 columns instead of just 16,000?
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:5, Interesting)
While this may be slightly off-topic, hopefully it is interesting. Someone I know at work was looking to buy a used copy of MS Office. I suggested that he download OpenOffice.org. When I asked him about it a week later, he told me that he had downloaded it and was now using it. OpenOffice.org did everything he needed it to do and he really liked the price tag!
Now I will try to relate this back to the topic at hand. Now that Microsoft is radically changing Office, it is a great time to switch to OpenOffice.org. The interface is close enough to Office, that retraining is minimal. It is questionable how many companies will use the collaboration features. Generally features are used as justification for upgrading but often the additional features are not well-utilized.
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:2)
A collaboration tool that is both simple and powerful is extremely difficult to do, if not impossible. At best, companies might be
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:2)
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:2)
If anyone spent that long to implement an upgrade to a paltry 1M x 16K spreadsheet size, I'd seriously consider demoting them to janitors.
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but if it couldn't support many, you'd be the first saying: Heh look at teh l4me Excel. It's because evil M$ wantz joo to buy SQL server. Evil, evil.
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:5, Interesting)
I just gave this a try in Word 12. It is a lot less drastic than you imply. If I have a word document with a bunch of text and a table in the middle, changing the cursor position does not change the current tab (where each tab is basically a set of toolbars grouped by task). All that changes is a little section of the window is highlighted indicating which tabs are related to table design. It's not intrusive, but conveys the point very clearly.
Office 12 does a lot to expose existing functionality to the typical user. Things that used to be buried deep in menus and dialog boxes are presented in a much more intuitive way. Try it out some time if you get a chance. Yes, the UI is different from most other applications, but it seems to be a model worthy of consideration for other applications.
Forward Compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just backward incompatibility. In this case, doing away with the traditional menu and toolbar structure is going to seriously impact forward compatibility as well.
A spatial interface like the ribbon will require serious retraining whenev
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:3, Interesting)
However, with the ribbons (which I have not used, I'm on a Mac here) they might have got it right. Whereas the chevrons left you with a 'where have my menu items gone' feel, the contextual ribbon changes should be instantaneous, and pretty intuitive - you click on a table and inst
Re:Spreadsheets != DBs AND DBs != Spreadsheets (Score:2)
If you're on a construction site and you always use your crowbar to drive nails, expect to get fired. It might work in a pinch, but it is deffinately NOT the right tool for the job.
Any sort of analyst plotting a million data points knows the right too for the job, and here's a hint: It's NOT a spreadsheet.
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:2)
Many people who currently use Office have memorised what they need to click on to do a particular set of tasks rather than having learnt how to use a GUI to do any task. For these people, the new Office will be unusable without them being trained how to use a computer all over again.
The original poster is right. Microsoft d
Monolithic cultures are vulnerable (Score:2)
I work at a company with well over 25,000 employees. Way to plan for catastrophic failure and massive support problems. I think we will pass on this dictum of yours -- based as it is on the presumption of incompatibility, which we really ought not to be accept
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:3, Insightful)
Some may say, "Oh but get a programmer". Oh yeah, and wanna see the costs as a result of getting a programmer involved? Traders wanna try out scenarios where the maths constantly change. Excel is perfect!
That's why you need 1 million records.
Re:I guess it HAS to be better to sell it (Score:3, Funny)
And the next version will have
** 100 BEELION ROWS **
mwaha ha ha
million-row spreadsheets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:million-row spreadsheets (Score:2)
But... we all know that what is going to end up happening is that
Re:million-row spreadsheets (Score:2, Funny)
Do you have any kind of basis for the distributed data assumption? That doesn't seem like an easy feature to sell to consumers, let alone the MS developers who would have to implement it...
Re:million-row spreadsheets (Score:5, Informative)
My point is that not everyone uses Excel as a database and this is a welcome change for us.
Nice Theory, but reality is different (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, ive seen people in excel basically create relational databases WITHIN excel. Dont under estimate what these people can come up with, some of its pretty damned scary.
Plus, atleast where I am, we have HUNDREDS of Excel workbooks and pidly ass Access databases that really should be in Oracle or SQL, but at the same time, they work. Our IT department is nowhere big enough to port and maintain each of these solutions to a more robust system. Plus, people creating these systems are pretty damned good at taking ownership of them. However, if they dont create the sheet/DB that last thing they want to do is maintain it. A double edge sword really.
For the most part both Excel and Access are necisarry evils, unless you have a huge IT budget.
Re:Nice Theory, but reality is different (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:million-row spreadsheets (Score:2)
Re:million-row spreadsheets (Score:2)
If you're using Excel, chances are the first thing you think of when you hear "database" is not "make a custom app with SQL".
I use Access and Excel everyday at work, and I couldn't imagine working with the huge tables we have in Access in just Excel. The data is just too much to comprehend all at once, but with Access you can chop down the
All You Need To Know: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All You Need To Know: (Score:2)
try it for yourself... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:try it for yourself... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it was available, until you told slashdot...
Re:try it for yourself... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:try it for yourself... (Score:3, Funny)
Available? Not quite! (Score:4, Informative)
So it looks like we may have to wait for Beta 3...
article is.... (Score:2)
Re:article is.... (Score:2)
Every page is 90% ads and crap, with the text in a teeny little column.
The animated ads were too distracting to bother reading past 2 or 3 pages.
Argh... (Score:2)
1 million row spreadsheets? (Score:2, Flamebait)
what kind of a jackass
Clippy! (Score:4, Funny)
>
> what kind of a jackass
It looks like you are trying to implement a relational database in Excel!
Would you like to...
Actually, it is useful. (Score:2)
Actually, this is kind of handy despite what you are thinking. I once had to chart a large amound of data that was just x and y values. I needed to dump that data into some statistical program just to seperate it into useable va
Re:1 million row spreadsheets? (Score:2)
One point that is missed here is that the previous limit (65K rows) was ludic
Re:1 million row spreadsheets? (Score:2)
Re:1 million row spreadsheets? (Score:3, Insightful)
It may work, and it may be done a lot, but there are actual tools for doing this sort of thing.
Part of the problem though is that a lot of people believe that every tool available for use on a computer is to be found in MS Office, somewhere. It's not.
To prove this, here's a thought excercise for you: Given the raw data you're crunching in excel briefly...describe how you would come to t
yuck! (Score:3, Insightful)
Look and Feel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look and Feel (Score:2)
more than a desktop app (Score:2)
People are going to think of ms office as much more than a set of standalone desktop applications, and more of an end to end system.
This makes sense in this day, and is a very effective way for MS to retain traction. The fact is that while the diversity of non-MS and particularly open source solutions is great, it's also a huge detraction since many people may choose an almost as good, almost as open solution over a confusing array of alternatives.
The last time I dabbled in the MS world, it wasn't particula
Non-standard UI (Score:2)
Re:Non-standard UI (Score:2)
The whole MDI thing with its bunch of tiny, rearrangeable menu bars with tiny little buttons was a bad idea in 1991, and it's bad today. And the menu bar only makes sense when it's attached to the top of the screen. If it's attached to the window then there's absolutely no reason to constrain it to a single like of text.
I
Re:The appearance is rarely the complaint. (Score:4, Informative)
And you really don't need to. I find it astonishing the way that criticisms of Swing that were fair 4-5 years ago are still being repeated. Swing has been fast since the later releases of Java 1.4. Swing has no performance issues on Java 1.5, and Java 1.5 apps start fast (I have just opened JEdit on my laptop PC. It started up faster than IE or Acrobat on the same machine. The menus and controls are instantly responsive).
If you have any issues with performance, get an up-to-date Java. Java 1.5 has been around for 18 months - there is no excuse!
Swing complaints (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The appearance is rarely the complaint. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I am using Java for desktop applications that are used on a daily basis. No issues about performance; no issues about repainting. It seems to me that part of the continuing anti-Java envangelism is obviously lying.
JEdit does _not_ launch instantaneously, it takes almost twice as long as firefox.
An
WTF (interface changes)? (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF? But I like my menu bars and toolbars, thank you very much. Menu bars has been a part of Windows since 1985 (and the Mac since 1983 thanks to the Lisa). I think most users would have a hard time understanding "ribbons"; I don't like it when programs try to be "smart" and hide features away from me. There must be an option to use the old menus and toolbars in Office 2007; if not, then I'm not buying it.
I find that Vista and Office 2007 seems to change menus around and get rid of long-standing GUI features for no apparent usability reason. What's wrong with the old Windows interface? To me, the Windows 2000 interface was the perfect user interface; I still use Classic on my Windows XP partition, and even my KDE desktop on FreeBSD is reminiscent of Windows 2000. I used Vista for a while; I'm not too impressed. Microsoft can take my copy of Office 2000 (I'd still happily be using Office 97 if somebody didn't give me his upgrade disks) and Windows XP when it pries it from my cold, dead fingers. When XP and Office 2000 become obsolete, I would have long switched to FreeBSD and OS X with OpenOffice by then (I'm already a FreeBSD user, too; I just need to buy a Mac to make the switch complete).
Why must they change the interface when the old one worked so well?
Re:WTF (interface changes)? (Score:2)
Hiding unused features: Catch-22 (Score:2)
Me too. I've never run into anyone who wants the menu items they don't regularly use to "vanish" or be available only when you choose to manually expand them. We all hate this feature. It doesn't simplify things, it complicates them by making us guess where everything is. Duh. Hint to MS and anyone else: When it's a feature we rarely use, we want to be able to find it on the occasions for which we do need it.
Another hint: peo
Re:WTF (interface changes)? (Score:2)
Re:WTF (interface changes)? (Score:3, Insightful)
FIrst ms tried to hide the complexities with menu's that delete uncommon features unless you put the cursor over the arrows in the menu. That failed.
So MS is redoing the UI. Also even for non novices like you and I its a pain to do things like custom graphics for presentations and documentation in word.
Re:WTF (interface changes)? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're griping is basically, "but I don't like to learn new things!," which is the opposite of how most Slashdotters seem to be... for instance, a lot of Slashdotters recommend starting with Gentoo when switching to Linux you can see how Linux works, or learning the CLI even if you're already experienced at a GUI interface.
Of course, with Microsoft involved, you know that 80% of these comments are saying it'll be a crappy product without even having tried it.
Re:WTF (interface changes)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WTF (interface changes)? (Score:4, Informative)
But I've read a lot of usability studies. Mostly from Apple and NextStep, but I actually did read two Microsoft ones. And I've read the human interface guidelines from Apple, Microsoft and Sun, cover to cover. Even the accessibility parts. Oh, and I've read a few books on the subject, too.
So when I say that ribbons aren't significantly better than menus, I don't mean that I dislike ribbons; I mean that ribbons don't address the issues which have been raised in the usability studies I've read over the last twenty years or so. I mean that, based on what I've read about the expectations of most users, I believe ribbons will not enhance productivity and may very well take away from it.
I wonder if a Microsoft usability study was what led to the introduction of "personalized menus." That may have addressed a need of users, but it didn't address it at all well.
UI design is largely about the art of communication, and ribbons don't seem to communicate available options very well. I believe Microsoft either has done or will do a usability study on that very subject, but I doubt that study will carry the weight it should. It certainly appears to have been pushed to the side where other Microsoft products are concerned.
When Microsoft says it's better, I'm afraid I don't trust them, because they have a history of not putting the users' experience at the front of their list of priorities.
Re:WTF (interface changes)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hear, hear! One of the first rules of UI design is, don't move things around and don't change the l
XPS? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell is XPS?
Google says X-Ray Photoemission Spectroscopy [google.com]. That is it's ony result, and it is taken from the place I would have gone next: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPS [wikipedia.org].
Re:XPS? (Score:5, Informative)
What the hell is XPS?
It stands for XML Paper Specification and is Microsoft's answer to PDF for document archival and printing. In fact, the whole Vista printing architecture centers around it. All Office applications will be able to save to it and there will be a viewer for non-Vista systems. It's pretty open (especially in Microsoft terms) and overall a good thing (IMHO). See Wikipedia Entry [wikipedia.org].
Wow... (Score:2)
(Long sound of ship-horn. Bubbles)
why bother? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:why bother? (Score:2)
OpenOffice.org! So advanced the software has features from 2009!
Given all the rant about new features... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Given all the rant about new features... (Score:2)
If it's well received - my experience is that it definitely improves feature discoverability - will OO.o copy the UI or invent something new?
Re:Given all the rant about new features... (Score:2)
What's the obvious thing to do?
If MS's new approach works better, then it only makes sense that OOo -- KOffice, and Lotus -- will follow suit. These projects need to be useful to ma and pa kettle, and if they expect an MS clone, they'd better get one.
Difficult Styles (Score:2)
The scary thing is that the concept isn't exactly foreign to me -- anyone who has used CSS knows the principle. I just can't believe I ignored it for so long.
Compatability and support (Score:2)
I think when a company has this kind of leverage over consumers, it should be considered anticompetitive and illegal. What's the downside to tightening the threshold of the definition o
It's all about the target audience... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is all fine and good. Really. But the changes in Office aren't targeted at power users. In fact, it probably is true that the new UI will frustrate power users. So, why did MS bother?
Because for every power user, there are 100s of regular users. They want to do more with Word, Excel, etc, but have a hard time finding the features they want. So, this is the first step in this direction. It won't be perfect, but what does do is break from tradition in some interesting ways.
Believe me that MS has been sticking this in front of users and doing usability studies. And I'm willing to bet that enough regular users think that the new UI isn't so bad, that it's pretty cool after you get used to it, and it's easier to find features and play around with them.
All the live preview featues and ribbon bars and so on are to make it easier to regular users to goof around with changes without making them permanent. Also, remember that this is Beta2, so it isn't clear that all the live preview features are in yet, so it could very well be that paragrpah sytle previews will be in the final product.
Finally, I think it is important to note something about the ribbons. The ribbons don't change. This is not the custom menu idea, where menus "adapted to users" whihc just translated to stuff moved on the menus, and you don't know why. You choose a ribbon, you get the tools for that ribbon period. They don't move around.
Will it work? Hard to say. But I like the idea that the idea of Office applications is being looked at in a fresh way.
Re:It's all about the target audience... (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is, most of those regular users are already accustomed to the Windows 95-esque and Office 97-esque interface, not this newfangled Vista stuff. For example, my parents are regular users and they still use Windows 95 and Office 97. Yet they have no trouble using Word, Excel, and those applications. Same with my siblings who, while very computer literate, they don't plan on coding and all of that other fun stuff. They can use classic Windows with very little difficulty. The classic Windows interface just works. Throw most regular users this Vista stuff with no menus, reorganized icons, and other stuff, and they will have to do a lot of retraining (just like how Windows 3.1 users had to switch to Windows 95, except I believe the XP-Vista switch of interfaces is worse compared to the 3.1-95 switch). It is a completely different OS; you might as well hand them a Mac (which has familiar menus, toolbars, a dock, and other features) or even KDE/GNOME (which is even more Windows-like; and no, this isn't a slam).
Don't think that regular users are cavemen and cavewomen who barely know how to use a computer. Regular users have a lot more computing experience than most of us CSers, UI people, and other computer professionals think. That's the problem with UI people; they want to design UIs for complete noobs, yet most people aren't complete noobs (but not exactly power users, either). I say, keep the old Office interface that we've been using since 1995. It works, and it works quite well. Any gratitious changes (like Office 2007 and Vista) would just make users think twice about getting a PC and think more about getting a Mac or switching to *nix (hey, you already have to learn a new interface with Vista; some people might as well switch OSes).
Longstanding problems fixed? (Score:5, Informative)
Some interesting new changes in word (Score:5, Informative)
2)The File menu is gone; now you have to somehow guess that the big icon in the upper left corner is its replacement.
3)The "most recently used" list is no longer limited to the last nine files
4)Track Changes now won't flag as "different" text that is simply moved, which is smart.
5) Ability to export documents to PDF and to their own pdf-like format, whatever that is.
Re:Some interesting new changes in word (Score:3, Informative)
Some of the changes make more sense when you pair Office 2007 with Windows Vista. It took me a while to figure out the Big Office Logo Sphere Button until I saw a screenshot of Word 2007 on Vista. Vista's Start button is now a Big Windows Logo Sphere Button in the bottom left corner of the screen. So I guess that means that the Big Office Logo Sphere Button in the top left corner of the screen is Office's "Start button". See, it all makes sense in a "the designers are insufferably happy, and we get to show
Re:Some interesting new changes in word (Score:3, Informative)
You
Ribbons sound like Office for the Mac (Score:2)
Training costs = One Platform (Score:3, Insightful)
IT: "training costs. Costs too much to show people how to use different software. that's why we're all Office and all microsoft."
"training costs" excuse.... we hardly knew thee...
Outlook requiring Exchange? (Score:3, Interesting)
So they are still trying to lock everyone into Exchange?
I predict this will not work. If the email in Outlook 2007 doesn't get much better IMAP support, I will push harder in my network to abandon it and replace it with Thunderbird or something else. And if the Outlook calendar doesn't fully support iCalendar for import, export AND remote WebDAV/CalDAV calendars, then it will not be hard to convince users that the limitations of Outlook are much worse than the bugs in Sunbird or Google Calendar.
Makes my documents LOOK GREAT! (Score:3, Funny)
1. Change my fonts.
2. Change my font sizes.
3. Tell Word where a picture should sit on the page (c00l!)
4. Change my margins (I never new I could do that!)
5. 1 million rows in Excel so I can finally tell my database to kiss off.
All this and more with a great, sure-to-be-lagless preview as I mouse over EVERYTHING!
But don't take my Word (tehe) for it. This video [microsoft.com] tells me how my documents can LOOK GREAT!
CNET has them as well.. (Score:3, Informative)
Word [com.com]
Outlook [com.com]
Excel [com.com]
Powerpoint [com.com]
Why all the fud here? About damn time MS innovated (Score:3)
The site is down so I can't see these new features like the ribbons. One of the common complaints about MS-Office is that many users request features that are already there but just hidden under a sea of menu's. MS tried with office2k and 2k3 to delete uncommon menu items in order for users to see the more options which utterly failed. Lets hope Ribbons work. I hope more advanced features like graphics and styles will be easier to implement as a result.
BUsinesses still use Office97 so of course MS wants to innovate to help users switch. Good for Microsoft.
I would rather have MS try to redo Office in order to sell more copies to corporate america rather than raise licensing costs in order to force upgrades.
As much as I dislike windows and Microsoft's business practices I will say MS Office is a wonderfull app and one of their gems. It needs a UI overhaul and more groupware collaboration is what alot of IT departments need. I hope with VBA you can customize it too.
No I am not a MSFan boy either if you read my other posts.
Toolbars Are Now Ribbons (Score:3, Funny)
Menus are Not Replaced! (Score:5, Informative)
The old menus still exist, they are just turned off by default with the Ribbon enabled. For die-hard people who don't want to give the ribbon a try, the old interface can easily be brought back.
I also want to point out that there was once a time when people thought WYSIWYG and icons were Bad Things. I see the Ribbon as a possible next step in the evolution of a GUI. Task Panes in 2003 were a great step forward and this might be too.
Menus collapse under their own weight (Score:4, Insightful)
Making features easier to find/discover is [apparently] one of the biggest benefits. Word has a zillion features, and most people use about 10.
Anyway, I'd recommend the blog as an interesting read for those people interested in user interface design for a product with hunderds of millions of users.
Re:Ribbons! (Score:3, Funny)
Ctrl+scrollUp in Internet Explorer 7 beta now matches the behavior in Office 2003 (zoom in). Let's just hope that someone didn't "fix" Office 2007 to match IE 6....
The spirit of Clippy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is braindead (Score:3, Insightful)
As an SQL Server developer, an Excel 'power' user and someone who manages about 20GB of statistical and performance data, I reckon I've got a clue here.
Show me a sample piece of SQL for calculating a cumulative average, without linking a table to itself, creating a new table or other weirdness. It's pretty hard.
What about a running total for certain criteria? Or percentile calculations, or means, standard deviations and so on?
SQL is just not good at statistics, even simple stat