Reply to: Office 2007

[RichardCranium]

I haven't used it in almost fifteen years... IIRC it last did its thing hooked up to an Acorn Archimedes around 1994 - 95

It's moved with me several times since then (I move, like night, from place to place) but I'm sure that if I were to plug them in, both the FX-80 and the Beeb would work perfectly

I last used my ICL-branded OKI Microline ML193 (132 column, print feeder, NLQ optional) in May 1995 to do my wedding invitations.

It's NLQ mode and ability to print on 120 gsm A4 cut sheet paper (optional straight through paper pass from beneath) meant it was perfectly adequate for the job.




(Even if it did take seven hours.)

[NickFitz]

the Epson FX-80 printer

Hello!!!

Nothing better for progarm listings imho!!!

I haven't used it in almost fifteen years... IIRC it last did its thing hooked up to an Acorn Archimedes around 1994 - 95

It's moved with me several times since then (I move, like night, from place to place) but I'm sure that if I were to plug them in, both the FX-80 and the Beeb would work perfectly

[RichardCranium]

Hello!!!

Nothing better for progarm listings imho!!!

Nah. OKI Microlines for me every time.

[Board Game Geek]

she saved it to a memory stick and brought it in here to work on but couldn't open it because ClientCo uses 2003

Do they still use horse-drawn carts for the sales reps ?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I hope they don't pay you for technical advice........


http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

No they don't and this was outside of my remit. There's no way she could install that on her machine here anyway, but thank you for the tip.

[blacjac]

ISpookily I was approached by one of the permies at ClientCo today - she has a new shiny PC at home and created a Word doc at home last night using Office 2007 - she saved it to a memory stick and brought it in here to work on but couldn't open it because ClientCo uses 2003 - she was not happy (I didn't slag MS - not my place in that context)

I hope they don't pay you for technical advice........


http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

[Spacecadet]

I haven't seen anyone make a convincing claim that the GUI changes in MS Office 97 are actually worthwhile.

Then don't upgrade, no ones forcing you

instead we just get a load of people saying anyone who doesn't like paying hundreds for software and then spending hundreds re-learning it is some kind of Luddite

Theres nothing to relearn, if you can use office 97, then once you've got the hang of the new menu you should be as productive in 2007 as you were in 97. Unless of course you want to be MS Office certified (is there such a thing?)
However, the new menu is better once you get the hang of it. Its better arranged and tasks can be performed quicker with less mouse clicks.

(there is a whole sub-argument to be had about the use of Luddite as a term of abuse when in fact they trying to avoid starving - but that's for another time)

And as for the Luddite term... given that IT is generally used to replace more labour intenisve manual methods and this is an IT contractors forum, then as an IT worker I am opposed to the Luddite Mentality. Its companies changing their IT systems to something new and hopefully more efficient which keeps me in a job and stops me starving to death.

I really can't see much advantage to me giving Microsoft loads of cash for something that offers no significant benefits.

Then don't buy it
I've not got Vista on my own laptop for that very reason, untill I see a reason for getting it, I won't.

Spookily I was approached by one of the permies at ClientCo today - she has a new shiny PC at home and created a Word doc at home last night using Office 2007 - she saved it to a memory stick and brought it in here to work on but couldn't open it because ClientCo uses 2003 - she was not happy (I didn't slag MS - not my place in that context)

I remember the same backwards compatibility problems on previous versions of office. Eventually people learn...
... although microsoft could make it a bit more obvious for the non-techies.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I haven't seen anyone make a convincing claim that the GUI changes in MS Office 97 are actually worthwhile. instead we just get a load of people saying anyone who doesn't like paying hundreds for software and then spending hundreds re-learning it is some kind of Luddite (there is a whole sub-argument to be had about the use of Luddite as a term of abuse when in fact they trying to avoid starving - but that's for another time). It's a bit like the Southerners going on and on and on and on and on about how much better the South is - they're hoping if they say it enough it will become true.

I really can't see much advantage to me giving Microsoft loads of cash for something that offers no significant benefits.

Spookily I was approached by one of the permies at ClientCo today - she has a new shiny PC at home and created a Word doc at home last night using Office 2007 - she saved it to a memory stick and brought it in here to work on but couldn't open it because ClientCo uses 2003 - she was not happy (I didn't slag MS - not my place in that context)

[ace00]

I can do things in latex you couldn't even dream of, honey

Best. Post. Ever

I need a lie down.

[realityhack]

Version 5.0 of Microsoft's flagship spreadsheet program Excel came out in 1993. It was positively huge: it required a whole 15 megabytes of hard drive space. In those days we could still remember our first 20MB PC hard drives (around 1985) and so 15MB sure seemed like a lot.

By the time Excel 2000 came out, it required a whopping 146MB ... almost a tenfold increase! Dang those sloppy Microsoft programmers, right?

Wrong.

I'll bet you think I'm going to write one of those boring articles you see all over the net bemoaning "bloatware". Whine whine whine, this stuff is so bloated, oh woe is me, edlin and vi are so much better than Word and Emacs because they are svelte, etc.

Ha ha! I tricked you! I'm not going to write that article again, because it's not true.

In 1993, given the cost of hard drives in those days, Microsoft Excel 5.0 took up about $36 worth of hard drive space.

In 2000, given the cost of hard drives in 2000, Microsoft Excel 2000 takes up about $1.03 in hard drive space.

(These figures are adjusted for inflation and based on hard drive price data from here.)

In real terms, it's almost like Excel is actually getting smaller!

Hmm...

[Spacecadet]

http://exceltips.vitalnews.com/Pages...rint_Area.html



You must have used this or do you always print the whole worksheet?

I never print from Excel

However - a quick look and its in
Page layout -> Print Area -> Set Print Area

[DimPrawn]

Not used that before so not sure what you mean, but if you mean page setup then its under page layout

http://exceltips.vitalnews.com/Pages...rint_Area.html

Summary: When you print a worksheet, normally Excel prints everything on the worksheet. If you want to limit what is actually printed, you can set a print area that encompasses the cells you want on the printout. This tip explains two ways you can easily define a print area. (This tip works with Microsoft Excel 97, Excel 2000, Excel 2002, and Excel 2003.)

You must have used this or do you always print the whole worksheet?

[Spacecadet]

How do you do Set Print Area? Used to be under File on that useless menu thing that all other software has.

Not used that before so not sure what you mean, but if you mean page setup then its under page layout

[DimPrawn]

an extra minute or so at most

How do you do Set Print Area? Used to be under File on that useless menu thing that all other software has.

[Spacecadet]

The new ribbon means you spend hours, days trying to do what you could do in minutes and at the end of the day, once you have learned it all, adds no value over the old menu system (used by all other Windows apps).

an extra minute or so at most