Talk:Microsoft Office/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Accident in editing

Many apologies, but this edit was a result of an unintentional accident which may appear to look like a spam edit. I was trying to point out about the skipping of version 13.0 and I accidentally pressed the wrong key with the reference in the wrong box (summary of edit). I've fixed it now.

Thanks. --Marianian (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

de facto standard

The article made two unreferenced claims about "de facto standard" that I have altered:

Microsoft Word is a word processor and was previously considered to be the main program in Office. Its proprietary DOC format is considered a de facto standard,

The claim is highly contestible, and is clearly non-NPOV. DOC neither is, nor is universally considered, a de facto standard. In fact, problems with interoperability even between different versions of Word it self. Many other tools (e.g. OpenOffice/Writer) supports DOC; however, they do so for pragmatical reasons and prefer their own formats. They have not adapted DOC as a standard.

                    Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet program. It was originally a competitor to the dominant Lotus 1-2-3, but it eventually outsold it and became the de facto standard.

The "and became ..." uses the phrase incorrectly; further, this adds no information not already present. It does, however, give a non-NPOV impression. I have deleted this part.

94.220.249.64 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Many other tools (e.g. OpenOffice/Writer) supports DOC; however, they do so for pragmatical reasons"

Well, yes, exactly. That's precisely why it's a de facto standard: because everything supports it (due to Office's effective monopoly). I think you might be confused about what "de facto standard" means: it does not mean a formally approved standard (that would be de jure standard); it means "a product or system that has achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market forces". No one is claiming .doc is a de jure standard (though your complaints would be correct if they were), but there's no doubt it's a de facto standard. (But you're right that the Excel quote was redundant anyway, so I'm happy to leave that as-is) -- simxp (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Linux/wine

i think we should list linux/wine as a supported OS, given its ability to run this software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC) i do not think it the category is said to include "officially supported OS's" , it includes any OS that the software runs on, regardless of what the manufacturer aggressively claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Logo

The new logo (the yellowish one) hasn't become the official loge yet, isn't it? Even if it has become, don't the new logo has arrow-pointed inner corner shape and lack of four squares? I know this isn't important, but it disturbs me...

--Malikussaid (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

PowerPC

The article posits that there were problems porting Office to RISC processors like PowerPC, The Mac version has been PowerPC native since at least Office 98, so I don't think that that could have really been a problem. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 17:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction: they had trouble in the mid-90s, and got it working by 98. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms - Chinese pricing?

I know a lot of people are critical of Microsoft's decision to sell Office for $29 in China, but a lot more in other nations.

Like Here

Cheers DuggersCup (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The link above does not work - the article is still available at: Coursey, David (July 21, 2009). "If China Gets Microsoft Office for $29, Why Don't We?". PCWorld. Retrieved 20 October 2010.

That article references this one: Burrows, Peter (July 16, 2009). "Microsoft's Aggressive New Pricing Strategy". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 20 October 2010.

--Marc Kupper|talk 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove product activation critism

What's with this line? "Since Office XP, Microsoft productivity suite series has been criticized for having Product Activation." A lot of products have product activation. It's is not even referenced and unless there is a valid reason why it has been "critisized" other than that of piracy advocation, I don't think this line should be included.

Rasmasyean (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people dislike any kind of challenge-response scheme. Adobe and Microsoft were the first major players to incorporate it, and there was a backlash. It made legitimate purchasers (and ONLY legitimate purchasers) have to request permission to use the software after they already bought it (permission Microsoft does not have to give), and again after any hardware upgrades.

"A lot of products have product activation." This certainly does not constitute justification. Software companies in many fields who embraced this kind of anti-user scheme experienced a backlash. Some software makers (Cakewalk comes to mind) even tout as a feature the fact that they do not use software activation. This sets them apart from their competitors.

This section should stay, even if only to document the widespread criticism Microsoft received over this move. Liberulo (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

.docx and other weird file formats

Here's what should be mentioned in the "Criticism" section (with "ref" links of course), basically: newer versions of Microsoft Office save the files using a different format, for example Microsoft Word saves the file with a .docx extension instead of the .doc used previously. When the user sends the .docx file to someone who uses an older version of Microsoft Office, they cannot open the file without installing the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack, however this is not obvious — they try to open the file and it just won't open. For this reason, I was taught to save files in Rich Text Format before passing onto someone else e.g. as an e-mail attachment. TurboForce (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this valid sourced criticism? Is it notable?Jasper Deng (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased phrasing of first sentence

The phrase "(ie. non-free)" in the first sentence is gratuitous because it follows the word 'proprietary', which is also linked to a definition. I propose to remove it. 138.37.244.26 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Office 15

"Microsoft Office 15 will be released most likely in 2013." This informatione is pure speculation and has no reference at all. It doesn't serve any purpose. However, if you decide to keep it in the article I'd like you to add the following information as well: "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2016." + "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2019." ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.176 (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it, pending a more reliable source. LobStoR (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is still there... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.176 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Yesterday I delete the part about Office 15. However, the user "Georgian Guy" changed it back and I don't understand why. 1. I did check google and couldn't find anything official about office 15. 2. It is correct to say that one has to check for sources before deleting something. However, it is even more important to check for official sources BEFORE adding something to an article. Please be kind enough to explain why the part about office 15 shouldn't be delete as I really don't see the point here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.176 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(In)security expansion

There's virtually no discussion of security. Some summation of the history and current status, with highlights regarding the macro virus years and long-term unpatched vulnerability years is in order. Any takers?--Elvey (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information

The article states:

"According to Forrester Research, as of June 2009, some version of Microsoft Office is used in 80% of enterprises, with 64% of enterprises using Office 2007.[2]"

However, the link it provides says nothing of this sort. In fact the only numbers I can see from Forrester Research shows that Windows XP still maintains the highest marketbase at ~80%. so I have to argue this number until a valid article is made. Also these numbers are based on ~100 odd hand selected organizations. Hardly a large number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.16.10 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notice. Now deleting the statement. Fleet Command (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

ISO Dates

The tables with dates should use the ISO 8601 format for better readability and to be consistent with other similar technical articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.192.26 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Article: Microsoft Office 2013

I have started a new Wikipedia article, Microsoft Office 2013. I have also redirected the pages Office 2013 and Office 15 to the new article. Please, expand the article, I have put some information, screenshots, and copied information from this and other Wikipedia articles. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot

I uploaded a new screenshot, which consisted of more recent software. However, the screenshot was blatantly illegible. The full resolution is retained on image page, but I hope a more experienced editor can somehow improve the situation.

Thanks,
Malikussaid (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Aaah, I also forgot to mention that the spaces between the application is white. I prefer the transparent ones like the previous screenshot. Feel free to modify it. Somehow I can't get MS Paint render transparency.

Thanks,
Malikussaid (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting "Office 13"

Recently I've been speculating about the redirect at Office 13. Currently, it directs to Microsoft Office 2010 or Office version 14 (I'll abbreviate it as v14). However, because of the recent new product of Microsoft Office 2013 (or Office v15), it seems that on many websites and organisations are now simply using the shortened form, Office 13, to refer explicitly to the latter. My point is that, the fact that Office 03 leads to Microsoft Office 2003 and Office 07 leads to Microsoft Office 2007, as simpler year denotations, is understandable. Office 10 redirecting to v10 = Office XP is also understandable, for "10" is a version number.

Now comes the problem: Office v13 does not exist. Thus is there a need to direct the Office 13 to its originally intended version (v14 = Office 2010), or will it be better to direct it to its namesake (= Office 2013)? Will this possibly adversely affect future redirects in being not consistent with its "typical" naming (such as causing problems with Office 18 by having v17 = Office 2018, or the like)?

One of my previous edits to change this was reverted by the user Georgia guy, but he did not really explain his stand very well. I'm just curious what everyone's opinions are and if a consensus can be reached. Anyone? NoNews! 13:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

License: Trialware

The license for MS Office and its versions V-12 (2007), V-14 (2010) and V-15 (2013) is marked as trialware, a REDIRECT to shareware; previous versions are marked as proprietary software. The "trialware" claim is not supported in any of those articles. I know that MS Office is pre-installed but not licensed when you buy some computers, and that it can be downloaded as a 1-month free trial from MS's website. However, what's described in the article trialware covers in no way MS's practice regarding its distribution of Office. I suggest to change the license type in this article and in the three versions mentioned above to "Proprietary EULA". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Hi. The article describes trialware as:

proprietary software that is provided to users without payment on a trial basis and is often limited by any combination of functionality, availability (it may be functional for a limited time period only), or convenience (the software may present a dialog at startup or during usage, reminding the user to purchase it; "nagging dialogs"). Shareware is often offered as a download from an Internet website or as a compact disc included with a periodical such as a newspaper or magazine.

This is exactly Microsoft's practice. As for the source problem, your message suggests that you are well aware of the source itself, so all that remains is adding it. By the way, I unconditionally oppose addition of null terms such as "EULA" anywhere in Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC problems and old parser function

Hi Lisa, I've read your edit summary. Could you tell me what's with these old parser functions. The <gallery> tag has many cool advantages, which I couldn't reproduce with any template. Just take a look at mw:Help:Images#mode_parameter. Towards WP:NFCC, could we simply add this page to theirs use rationale? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

1. About NFCC, no you can't. This area of Wikipedia is too strict; even I don't dare messing with it. The images that you included are too high resolution for this article (NFCC#3b) and you are using four images when one alone would suffice. (WP:NFCC#3a) In the face of that, people have been arguing that Microsoft Office articles don't need an image at all.
2. About performance: Loading one image is faster than four images, especially on a phone GPRS. Besides, you offload raster rendering load to marshaling and layout phase. Again, not good for mobile devices and tablets, which have varying level of standard support.
3. About parser function, it concerns Module:InfoboxImage, which is the backbone of rendering images in the infobox. The way the planned changes to Wikipedia is going, we are going to have to forgo its pass-through rendering of non-image code sooner or later. When it happens, your gallery code will stop working. (Your border will go too.)

Generally, Rezonansowy, I've seen you resorting to hacks when standard-editing is possible. Hacks fall apart quite quickly.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I think this article needs a Criticisms section, it was here once, can I restore it and improve it? Articles like this need this section. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Version table

The version table lists the 2016 Preview Version for OSX but does not do the same for Windows. It should either list both or none but now it's inconsistent.--MrEnglish (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Microsoft Office. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120829165451/http://www.intowindows.com:80/microsoft-office-history-in-brief/ to http://www.intowindows.com/microsoft-office-history-in-brief/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate infobox

Why do we need to have two tiled infoboxes, one about "Microsoft Office" generically (but in reality, the Windows version) and one about "Microsoft Office for Mac"? It's unsightly (takes up most of the page space on my small screen, for instance), most of the information in them is duplicated, and I've never seen another article do this merely because a piece of software is multi-platform. I think they should be merged back together, with the differences only specified where relevant. I will do this in the absence of objections. LjL (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, LjL

To summarize: Different name, screenshot, version number, release date, languages and operating system list. That's 87% of the infobox being non-duplicate. Also, the stable version used to link to different articles in the past: Microsoft Office 2013 vs. Microsoft Office for Mac 2011. This might be temporary: Office 2016 is the first version of Microsoft Office to have the least number of new features. (OneNote 2016 has literally nothing new, besides its consistent 2016 look.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I find it quite gratuitous to include both screenshots. It's the same product overall: are we trying to show off the differences between Mac and Windows standard widgets?

The rest is all things that could easily be put in a "x (for Windows), y (for Mac)" format, while longer entries, like "Proprietary commercial software (retail, volume licensing, SaaS)", are duplicated verbatim. The screenshot caption is also exactly duplicated except for the name. Good thing we treat Office for various mobile devices separately, and they don't have a Linux version... or I'd have to get a panoramic screen! LjL (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: If we merge the infoboxes without disposing of one of the screenshots, the result would only occupy more space because "For Windows" and "For OS X" labels also take space and this time, they appear in the second column only. If you can get the consensus for evicting one of the two screenshots, or using a half-and-half hybrid screenshot collage, then you and I can give merging infoboxes a try.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Microsoft Office website

Very short stub that is not NOTEWORTHY of its own article. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Why not delete? Not everything remotely connected to Microsoft is automatically worth an article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)