Office 2010

[Sockpuppet]

When I buy new PCs for users, they dont tend to ask about speed or memory, they say I want XP, I dont want office 2007. I now have one director of the place I contract for telling me how good he thinks Open Office is... Just like the old office but free!

Open Office is ok for 99% of users but there are some that now after being spoiled with 1.04 million rows like new office better.

[Sockpuppet]

I am the customer - I pay Microsoft for that work and it is me who decides whether to upgrade or not - Office 2003 works fine for me, there are no good reason to upgrade to 2010 at all, full stop.

Even final addition of Excel's ability to handle more than 64k rows does not tempt me since anyone who has got that much data should not be using Excel in the first place.

#

No your wrong. There are good reasons to upgrade to the new version of office.....if you're going to use it.

I work with databases and excel all day. 64k is feck all in terms of rows. I could take your view and think that i need to design a database to hold all the information and write a query to pull all that info summaried into a work book. Or I could spent 5 minutes and do the same thing in excel. I use the db for stuff that will be repeated and has an accurate datasource and excel for stuff that is a one off becuase someone needs it now. Just because Excel having more than 64k rows doesn't satisfy your narrow view on the world doesn't make it a waste of time.

[d000hg]

Oh, so the developers knew better than the customers. If I coded like that I would be out of work.

When has anyone worked with non-technical end-users who know what they really want? If you design based on what users tell you, you end up with this:

http://blog.ponoko.com/wp-content/up.../homer-car.gif

That's why we have people who's job is designing the UI.

There are no reasons whatsoever why not to have optional old menu styles - it's none of Microsoft's business to make me learn their new days - at the end of the day it's just interface mapped to execute same functions.

As I clearly explained previously, you can't innovate if you let people stay with what they know. People need to be pushed in the right direction. If you can't understand that, stick to your server programming. And get a proper designer to overhaul your damn-ugly web-page while you're at it... that eyesore nullifies your credibility to discuss UI.

[AtW]

As I clearly explained previously, you can't innovate if you let people stay with what they know. People need to be pushed in the right direction. If you can't understand that, stick to your server programming. And get a proper designer to overhaul your damn-ugly web-page while you're at it... that eyesore nullifies your credibility to discuss UI.

Listen numpty, you can innovate all your want - I don't mind this ribbon tulip in principle, however what I mind is it being forced down my throat when it is trivial to keep old "classic" menues.

Historically this is how it was done - new option might be on by default, but only completely crazy company that will soon go bust would do that ... or a monopoly that knows it can force this stuff and not go bust.

I am still using Office 2003 - apart from Outlook that just got too slow with my inbox, I have every moment of tulipy ribbon in it

[PAH]

I am still using Office 2003 - apart from Outlook that just got too slow with my inbox, I have every moment of tulipy ribbon in it

Outlook is crap anyway. I hated all that pst file bollox whenever I wanted to access my mail from another PC or rebuild my main one.

Much prefer the free Windows Live Mail that not only stores each email in it's own easily archivable and syncable text file (though still hidden about 10 levels deep in the User folder), but also gives seamless integration and backup with the hotmail account I always use at client sites, in case M$ try to pull a Google Mail on me and delete all it all from their servers.

[AtW]

Outlook is ok - I tried other clients but they can't handle amount of mail I get.

[2BIT]

It's pretty blindingly obvious from the reaction of people like AtW why they didn't make it optional. People would try it once, say "I can use the old way easier" and switch it off forever.

thing is if it was a mac i would expect that but not with windows, I personally make XP look like windows 2000 whenever I do a fresh install, I can use the XP theme but prefer the old theme, i would like to be able to set the theme of win7 back to an old theme - doesn't mean I'll never try new things out its just about having the option, personally microsoft shouldn't care how I access menus

is it true they changed the keyboard shortcuts for the menu commands in excel 2007?

[Sockpuppet]

Outlook is ok - I tried other clients but they can't handle amount of mail I get.

How much e-mail do you get?!!

[d000hg]

Listen numpty, you can innovate all your want - I don't mind this ribbon tulip in principle, however what I mind is it being forced down my throat when it is trivial to keep old "classic" menues.

You're such a typical engineer. You confuse the fact it's easy to leave menus in with the philosophy behind removing them. They didn't take them out because it was difficult to keep them, but to force you to learn what they believe is a better system and will benefit you.

Go back to your coding...

[2BIT]

what is worse than the ribbon is the responsiveness of explorer on the new win platforms, I never need to use the new search functionality and have found that there is a noticeable delay in clicking on a folder in the task bar and then having it maximise, the new address bar turns out to be not that useful and don't like the tendency to attempt to merge one directory and contents over another one of the same name insead of doing a quick replace. everyone gets use dto things with time but just found when I first used it that it felt like a step backwards

to echo many here it doesn't bother me that they some how thought this was a superior version of explorer but it does bother me that I can't set it back