Text 5856, 85 rader
Skriven 2005-07-10 17:42:10 av Gary Britt (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 5806 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Microsoft looks to partners to force Office upgrades
================================================================
From: "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com>

The truth be told, Office for Win95 and Office 5.0 for Win3.1 was good enough
for 95% of the market.

I've stayed at the Office 2K level with no intention on the horizon of going
higher.

Gary


"Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
news:gp20d15pia2kf36nb3k8qn0e68mmpdivoj@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/07/08/_office_partners/
>
> ===
> Microsoft is calling on its partners to overcome customer inertia in the
> Office franchise, and help drive sales of its desktop and server
> productivity system.
>
> Microsoft opened its Worldwide partner conference with tantalizing tales
> of $140bn in unrealized market opportunities for companies building
> applications and services using Office 2003 in messaging and
> collaboration, portal and enterprise content management, enterprise
> project management and smart client.
>
> Highlighting portal and smart client, Microsoft claimed companies can
> realize profit margins of between 20 per cent and 40 per cent building
> plug-ins and services for Office 2003, with start-ups breaking even in
> their first nine months.
>
> Large-scale opportunities are available primarily as a result of the
> fact large numbers of customers are not upgrading to later editions of
> Office, like Office 2003. While Microsoft claims 600 million Office
> users analysts estimate 30% are still running Office 1997, having
> skipped Office 2000 and Office XP.
>
> The prime reason is Office 97 is "good enough" for these users'
> needs....
> ===
>
>
> Speaking from my own experience, I was upgraded at work from MS Office
> '97 to MS Office XP 2002.  My version of MS Office has to remain at the
> tail end of the upgrades because I create spreadsheets, reports, and
> macros for others in the company, and I have to be compatible with the
> oldest versions in use.
>
> One of the MS Access reports that I publish uses a cross-tab query.  In
> MS Access the query took less than 5 seconds to run.  In MS Access XP
> 2002, the query takes between 20 and 30 seconds to run.  This is going
> against a local Access database.
>
>
> One of the MS Excel spreadsheets that I publish requires the sorting of
> a lot of data (the disk file for the spreadsheet is over 4MB in size).
> MS Excel '97 used to sort the data in about 10 seconds, without any
> problems.   MS Excel XP 2002 takes close to 25 sconds to sort the data,
> and the spreadsheet will usually hang on a subsequent operation (such as
> insert row) that I do in the spreadsheet.
>
>
> So in the two instances above, Office '97 wasn't just "good enough" it
> was far better, faster and more reliable than MS Office XP 2002.  Based
> upon what I have experienced in the first two weeks of using MS Office
> XP 2002, I'd never recommend to anyone that they upgrade from MS Office
> '97.
>
> And then there is the cursor clutter that I see in MS Excel.  Funny
> little icons are constantly appearing next to the cursor as I move
> around the spreadsheet, distracting my attention from what I am trying
> to accomplish with the spreadsheet.   To me it looks like Microsoft
> could not think of any good features to add to MS Excel, so they decided
> to add eye-candy clutter.  That stupid paper clip has been reincarnated.
>
> This saddens me because MS Excel is one of my all-time favorite
> applications, and now I see it being brought down under the weight of
> instability, slowness and eye-candy.  I may have to revise my comment to
> say that MS Excel '97 is one of my all-time favoritte applications....
>
>  /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)