Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint

[TrainableMan]

I think an easy menu for the masses is fine but taking away the method hard-core users like is pizz-poor policy. They will give you 6 different ways to open any control panel window but they are too stupid to continue supporting classic options many of us have used since 95.

 

[tanzanos]

Tanzanos,
I tried Classic Shell and it wouldn't let me customize it like I always set up my XP classic so I just use the "new" version (that really isn't new, it came out with XP I just never used it)..

Microsoft's OS is almost a monopoly at over 85% of the market but I wouldn't say that is the case on their software. There are so many choices out there.

If you find a link to the FREE office 2007 banner replacement please post the link.

Here is the link
http://www.technibble.com/ubitmenu-classic-menu-for-office-20072010-repair-tool-of-the-week/

 

[TrainableMan]

This is to no one in particular

I may become "snarky" (never "tizzy fizzy") when I feel someone is telling me I'm wrong for something I never said. I too, have experienced the inability to follow someones train of thought in these forums and then had my questions confused as confrontation when all I sought was clarity. Hopefully I have cleared up any confusion as to what I meant and that there are no hard feelings going forward.

 

[Tushman]

I don't like how they make it less backward compatible for files written on earlier versions. You can work around it but it's still a bit inconsiderate of them.

Mychael,

I think you're referring to the fact that Office 2007 saves files in XML format by default (e.g. .docx; xlsx...etc). First of all, you can change the default file save format behavior in Office 2007 so that it's saved in the same format as previous versions.... in another words *.doc. Secondly, there is a free update available from MS so that if you have 2003 or earlier versions, you can read/edit/modify files that were originally created in 2007 (xml) formats.

I agree this may not have been very obvious when Office '07 was first introduced - however it's been nearly 4 years since the 2007 version was launched on the market and *most* users of Office know this by now.

There were several reasons why MS decided to go with the open XML format. Most of it's "under the hood" and not readily apparent to the average user. This list here explains some of the more important ones succinctly.

 

[TrainableMan]

If you are a fan of the ribbon you may also find these threads Nibs posted of Windows Club programs useful.

A notepad replacement that continues the ribbon menu style:
https://www.w7forums.com/give-your-notepad-ribbon-user-interface-fluentnotepad-t6679.html

Office 2010 Interactive Guide:
https://www.w7forums.com/microsoft-word-2010-ribbon-menu-interactive-guide-released-t6680.html

 

[Mychael]

Yes, I know you can alter the save format. I just have to remember to do it for friends with older versions. I have 2007 so does not effect me but some of my friends are not online and would not see or probably know about the updates.. Lots of people still using the older versions of word and Excel as for home user there is no pressing need to upgrage. I only did as I got it free from work.
The under the hood aspect is lost on actual users, they just want it to work.

 

[tanzanos]

I honestly fail to see the advantages of Ribbon? The older menus were so logical in their structure and extremely efficient to use that I cannot understand why MS changed them. Also if MS wants to steal Mac users then at the least she should have given us the option of Ribbon or Classic menus. Restricting the user in the field of computing and thus rendering many to suffer the unfriendliness of new GUIs is basically defeating the "computers make life easier" motto.
Yesterday I accepted a challenge by a young office worker who insisted that Ribbon is more efficient. I out paced him all the way till he admitted that there is no advantage in efficiency with Ribbon over classic menus.
If only the MS golden boys just kept away from the R&D department; Life will be so much easier! :dontknow:

 

[clifford_cooley]

Yesterday I accepted a challenge by a young office worker who insisted that Ribbon is more efficient. I out paced him all the way till he admitted that there is no advantage in efficiency with Ribbon over classic menus.

If you spend as much time with the Ribbon Bar as you have with the Menu Bar, you would probably be just as efficient. Efficiency comes with learning your tools so they become second nature to you.

I have been using Office 2007 for a while now and just the other day realized something. The Mouse Scroll can be used to rotate the Ribbon Categories. Once you get used to where the commands are located, you can go straight to that location and then scroll to the correct ribbon.

I do agree with the thought of having a choice of Menu Bar or Ribbon. I also hear that in Office 2010, Microsoft has added the ability to customize the Ribbon Bar. This will help in customizing the bar to look closer to the way anyone thinks it should be.

 

[Mychael]

I think that is the strength (or weakness) depending on your point of view of the Apple O/S. The format stays essentially the same so it's never a big transition from one vesion to the next.
M/S have this mindset where each O/S must be different to be better and I'm not sure this is the best way to go.
Each time they make a new release it's always a lot different to the last and I think this does not give users the chance to get comfortable and build up loyalty.

 

[Tushman]

...The under the hood aspect is lost on actual users, they just want it to work.

It's hard to write a software package that pleases EVERYONE. What software do you know of that does that? Even with linux distros - there are several variations to suit the various needs/preferences. Secondly, MS makes the most profit by selling multi-volume licenses to corporations and small companies who tend to buy just more than 1 little license for their single PC at home. Who do you think the focus is on? I would argue that when it comes to the Office package - the focus is on the business/corporate side - NOT the casual home user who uses Word to type letters & such. Again, this is just my guess and not fact of course. That's not to say that they don't give a rip about home users of Office - but when it comes to such a complex software suite - it's hard to please all 200 million users.

This may sound obvious, but I make this point because I think you're looking it from a narrow point of view. When you claim the benefit is lost on "actual users". I think you should reconsider who the end user is -- because it is varied. I used to work as an IT professional in corporate america - and have run across all types of users. Complete novices to power users. I would agree that many of casual users wouldn't really appreciate the full benefits of the open XML format. But this is the same category of users who never did appreciate Office 2003/2002/2000 to begin with! Talk about tapping or scratching only a fraction of full capabilities.... I would show them things and they would say "Man, i never knew Excel could do that!"

Then there's the other side. The power users, the IT professionals, the database developers..&.so on. Professionals who often need to integrate data or import data from Excel (or what have you) with another NON-microsoft application. Those are the "actual users" who have a much better appreciation for the benefits of the open XML format.

 

[Mychael]

Secondly, MS makes the most profit by selling multi-volume licenses to corporations and small companies who tend to buy just more than 1 little license for their single PC at home. Who do you think the focus is on? I would argue that when it comes to the Office package - the focus is on the business/corporate side - NOT the casual home user who uses Word to type letters & such. Again, this is just my guess and not fact of course. That's not to say that they don't give a rip about home users of Office - but when it comes to such a complex software suite - it's hard to please all 200 million users.

This may sound obvious, but I make this point because I think you're looking it from a narrow point of view. When you claim the benefit is lost on "actual users". I think you should reconsider who the end user is -- because it is varied.
users" who have a much better appreciation for the benefits of the open XML format.

I'd have to disagree on a few points. You may speak of corporate or companies but somewhere down the line of all those businesses are office people, single persons on single pc's, they are the true "end users" and if you added up all the people in all the offices around the world then add in the home users you would far exceed the numbers of I.T proffessionals and power users. Take my organisation as an example we are classed as Microsoft product users (cant recall the exact term) but it's why I got my copy of Office at a big discount price but the real world of it is that we are just individuals at our branches all working the computers self taught.

I don't know if M/S makes it major $$ from corporate sales but it's advertising in Tv and print media (at least in Australia) is firmly marketed towards the individual private buyer.

So although I don't personally have problems with using office I still reckon that a fair proportion of it's improvements under the hood are lost on end users and all they want is for it to work and to work easily.

 

[TrainableMan]

I think currently Windows 7 is on more home machines than are deployed in corporations. Because XP is so strongly entrenched and successful corporations are slow to roll out W7. It may well be the individuals using it at home that encourage businesses to switch this go around.

As for adding XML, that is a good thing and I don't want them to stop adding new goodies; I just wish they would stop taking away old established ones.

I honestly think there is an issue with Microsoft ever since Bill Gates stepped down. Their new policy seems to be like it or lump it. They don't want to provide backwards compatibility and even yank the front-end out of products that really have the old code inside. If you are lucky it can be restored with a reghack but a lot of the time they are more thorough.

 

[tanzanos]

MS is a MONOPOLY and as such has the attitude inherent in monopolies which is: "Take it or lump it, but we know you will be back!"

Apple OS: Good but GUI is horrid!
Win 7: Excellent but GUI is just as bad as Apple's. The developers should suffer the same fate as the Ribbon developers.
RIBBON: They should hang, draw, and quarter the developers of this horrid interface!

 

[TrainableMan]

RIBBON: They should hang, draw, and quarter the developers of this horrid interface!

Now I wouldn't go that far. I think for people new to computers or at least to office it may be a good thing. Like Tushman said, they did do research to watch peoples eye movement etc and may well be an improvement. But for those of us with 15+ years of doing it another way it is just plain inconsiderate to disable the old method and it most assuredly is slower for us.

 

[Tushman]

I'd have to disagree on a few points. You may speak of corporate or companies but somewhere down the line of all those businesses are office people, single persons on single pc's, they are the true "end users"....

Your definition of what a true end user is slightly different from mine. Not sure here if we are the same page here. Rather than breaking it down so vaguely using the word "true" I'll just tell you what I consider a "end user" to be. I consider an end-user to be anyone who uses the software. They could be a casual user (meaning in this case they fire up MS Word to type letters every once in a while) to professional office workers - to power users - to IT professionals and software developers. In my eyes - they are all end users if they use MS Office in some capacity.

I don't know if M/S makes it major $$ from corporate sales but it's advertising in Tv and print media (at least in Australia) is firmly marketed towards the individual private buyer.

Maybe that is a marketing strategy that have taken on in Australia. But that is certainly not the case here in the US (or more specifically Chicago). I cannot say that I have noticed any heavily marketed campaign or advertisement focus being spent on the individual private buyer. And I've been living in Chicago for over 10 years - long enough to notice (or not notice).

So although I don't personally have problems with using office I still reckon that a fair proportion of it's improvements under the hood are lost on end users and all they want is for it to work and to work easily

Sure I can agree to a certain extent. But the effect is lost on end users most of the time anyway isn't it? I mean just take a look at Win 7 as an example - some people here in the states are so afraid of technology or stubborn in their old ways, that they don't care about the benefits of Win7 over XP or whatever they're currently using. Even in the case of current Win7 users - most of the time the end user isn't too concerned about the "under the hood aspect".

The switching over to the open xml platform for Office is beneficial to power users and IT professionals. Yes they are an elite minority or a small percentage of overall users, but they are still "end users" of the product.

 

[TrainableMan]

I cannot say that I have noticed any heavily marketed campaign or advertisement focus being spent on the individual private buyer.

Are you kidding me? Maybe they couldn't afford the Chicago market as heavily but I saw a lot of Windows 7 commercials aimed at the individual in the D.C. area. The whole "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea" - doesn't that ring a bell?

 

[Tushman]

Are you kidding me? Maybe they couldn't afford the Chicago market as heavily but I saw a lot of Windows 7 commercials aimed at the individual in the D.C. area. The whole "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea" - doesn't that ring a bell?

Yes of course. But Mychael (I believe) was referring to ads specifically on MS Office not Win 7. I could be wrong about that. At any rate, taken in the context of this thread and the big fuss over the ribbon, my original assertion was that MS focuses more heavily on the business/corporate side as far as pushing MS Office.

 

[Mychael]

Tushman, your reply to my post is correct. We are I think saying much the same thing just differently. If as we seem to agree that power users and IT guys are the minority of end users then I think M/S is missing it's market a bit if we accept that the greater proportion of end users are "Ma and Pa". Change for changes sake alone might be how some businesses think they need to be to keep viable but I think a continual evolution rather then revolution is the better way to go to keep previous loyal users on board and not feeling alienated by too much change too soon. Backward compatability is imho a good way to achieve that.
My employer is like perhaps a lot of companies in that they make changes like going to the most recent versions of Office but retaining XP with no signs of changeing any time soon.

Sorry for a misunderstanding but I was referring to WIN7 advertising and from what I've seen over here it's slanted to home users/individuals more then companies.So if they are making their $$ out of corporate sales then the advertising does not to me seem to be reflecting this.