Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

200 comments

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605068)

1st!

Re:first (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#36605116)

What now, first missing feature, first too high complexity, or first taking seriously?
Or do you mean that when compared with Google Apps, Office 360 ranks first?

Dealbreaker (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605096)

It can't open my old Final Cut Pro projects.

Re:Dealbreaker (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | about 3 years ago | (#36605692)

It also, can't play crysis.

Re:Dealbreaker (1)

md65536 (670240) | about 3 years ago | (#36605974)

It also, cannot grill burgers while ensuring food stays moist, with up to 43% less fat.

Re:Dealbreaker (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 years ago | (#36606712)

Gentleman there is always GNU/emacs.

Re:Dealbreaker (1)

garaged (579941) | about 3 years ago | (#36606818)

But then how are we supposed to edit files?

Re:Dealbreaker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605878)

I am so sorry I do not have a mod point for this post.

Re:Dealbreaker (1)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36606038)

I heard that will be a new feature when Cairo is finished :P

We use it here (5, Informative)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605118)

and have been for the last two months. I use linux on my desktop, it's nice to be able to have access to the web apps, since I can't very well install the software. Also, the big thing you need to consider when deploying this - If you use the migration tool and link your AD accounts with Office365, you cannot ever get rid of your local AD because you won't be able to manage your users. We chose to export each user to a PST, and import their PST's into their new Office365 account now that we are one step closer to dumping our expensive and bloated local MS infrastructure.

Re:We use it here (2)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605328)

Also, it IS possible to remove synced users. You run a tool buried in the folder structure of the sync utility, set a flag in the registry for the tool to do a full sync, and have it sync with an empty OU. Works like a champ.

Re:We use it here (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 3 years ago | (#36605336)

What is it adding over Google apps in your case? It seems to me that if you want to reliably migrate away from MS infrastructure that would be more of a step in the right direction, wouldn't it? Won't your marketing people miss man of the top end features of powerpoint in any case?

Re:We use it here (3, Interesting)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605376)

What is it adding over Google apps in your case? It seems to me that if you want to reliably migrate away from MS infrastructure that would be more of a step in the right direction, wouldn't it? Won't your marketing people miss man of the top end features of powerpoint in any case?

Well, we did try out google apps. I like it, but I got overruled :) The main complaints with google apps - No Lync No web app versions of Word, Excel, etc ( I'll admit, I like having this option, since I cannot install them and sometimes OO/LO doesn't cut it) My main complaints against 365 - Google apps is cheaper, and accomplishes most everything we did before with a local Exchange deployment It's Microsoft People might start putting data into the lockbox that is Sharepoint. It's a nightmare migrating data out of there, and we had been down that road before.

Re:We use it here (1)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605390)

Sorry that's a bit hard to read, I didn't know Slashdot would kill all my new lines.

Re:We use it here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36606306)

Sorry that's a bit hard to read, I didn't know Slashdot would kill all my new lines.

The default is HTML. Change to plain text, or learn a little HTML and use tags to format.

Re:We use it here (3, Informative)

lymond01 (314120) | about 3 years ago | (#36605518)

Not the original poster, but one advantage of Office365 is that you can tie it in with the Cloud AD. The MS infrastructure hardware is run somewhere else to manage your systems, and you use the same authentication for Office 365 access. And as the user mentioned there's Lync which is chat/video like Google, but also allows VOIP, voicemail transcription, etc.

Re:We use it here (0)

Abreu (173023) | about 3 years ago | (#36605450)

Really? PSTs? The ginormous outlook files?

Re:We use it here (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 3 years ago | (#36605662)

Really? PSTs? The ginormous outlook files?

What would you use to export your user data from Exchange Server? PSTs will contain all your messages, calendar entries, tasks and notes in one single file, which can then be easily imported into Microsoft's cloud servers. I can't see what is the downside to this file format for this purpose.

Re:We use it here (1)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605682)

Really? PSTs? The ginormous outlook files?

What would you use?

Re:We use it here (1, Interesting)

djlowe (41723) | about 3 years ago | (#36606588)

Really? PSTs? The ginormous outlook files?

What would you use?

Abreu doesn't have the slightest idea... his exposure to Exchange and Outlook in a corporate environment is basically nill, and so the best he can come up with is a one-liner slam of all things "M$".

I took a brief trip through his posting history, and the bulk of it is non-technical, and overall mostly one or two line comments responding to non-technical articles.

He doesn't have the slightest idea how to help you: His post is a knee-jerk reaction to a question that he doesn't understand.

However, if you're really looking to migrate away from an existing Exchange infrastructue, the PST approach is probably best - there are PST to converters available for many platforms.

My opinion? Our company isn't going to migrate from Exchange any time soon, and most especially not to the "cloud", and here's why:

Our existing Exchange infrastructure is completely satisfactory for our current corporate needs. However, being proactive, we are planning to virtualize it soon: We have the VM servers in place already, and the transition from discrete physical servers to VM's will be transparent, and our existing SANthat already hosts our Exchange data is more than adequate.

And why not move to "the cloud"? Sorry, but we're a 24/7 shop, already set up for such... and we've no need, nor desire, to offload that to anyone outside our company, and so risk losing control of it.

Re:We use it here (3, Informative)

djlowe (41723) | about 3 years ago | (#36606842)

Clicked Submit by mistake. The rest of this: We're looking at cloud services as an adjunct, and *maybe* a replacement for our current backup scheme... but nothing more than data backup, ever.

We already have the needed hardware/infrastructure, personnel, recovery in place to ensure 24/7 operations, and we cannot risk losing control of that, as millions of dollars in service contracts with SLAs, etc., would be at stake if we did so.

For us, "the cloud" means in current parlance: "Store all your mission critical data on third-party storage, and then have to rely upon them for availability that we've not only already created, but cannot ultimately ensure nor control, regardless of contracts with them".

And that's just the operational/production side of the equation. Then there's security issues, privacy issues, etc.

Sorry, ain't gonna happen, not any time soon.

Call me old-fashioned, but all things considered, a "mass migration" to the cloud, company-wide would be a very bad thing for us at this point, despite internal pressure: I've had sales people in our company ask "So, when are we moving everything to the cloud?"... as though that was a magical solution to our problems: We're growing, rapidly, you see, and they see it as a "magic bullet" to address file server storage constraints, mailbox size limitations (one of our sales person's Exchange mailbox is 4GB... and he refuses to archive it, despite his own admission that he's not needed the email dating back nearly 8 years, ever).

Attempts to explain that doing so would involve the need for enormous increases in external bandwidth at all of our offices, with commensurate cost to ensure availability fall on deaf ears: For them, bandwidth is "magic" - they get faster Internet access at home, you see, and repeatedly tell us that, and they simply cannot understand why we don't switch to "local consumer broadband provider" for all of our needs, based upon their experience at home.

Anyway: Moving to the cloud might be viable for some companies, but it's not for us.

Regards,

dj

Re:We use it here (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 3 years ago | (#36605470)

Depending on the size of your company and it's organizational complexity, it's nice to have a local file server that you can manage with AD security groups. It also makes deployment of AV software and managing workstations much more manageable once they're joined to an AD domain as well. Don't discount a local MS infrastructure entirely. It still has its uses.

Re:We use it here (0)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605558)

Depending on the size of your company and it's organizational complexity, it's nice to have a local file server that you can manage with AD security groups. It also makes deployment of AV software and managing workstations much more manageable once they're joined to an AD domain as well. Don't discount a local MS infrastructure entirely. It still has its uses.

It's funny actually. The biggest reason it's being considered is because the CEO wants us to explore it. He has been spanked so hard by MS in the past 15 years over licensing, activations, upgrading, IT spending enormous time on Sharepoint problems, etc that it's more like "my linux servers cost me less money than my MS ones, lets get rid of as many MS servers as possible". As much as I love free software and linux (that's all I use personally), the idea of moving away completely from an AD where I can enforce policies on the windows workstations and push out software does frighten me a bit. We basically just want to leave our options open.

Re:We use it here (1)

lymond01 (314120) | about 3 years ago | (#36606672)

File serving and AV isn't really MS infrastructure. The MS stuff are the domain controllers, system center manager, DHCP server. Those can be cloud-based. File serving can be a Linux box running SMB to tie into your AD authentication.

Re:We use it here (1)

Reservoir Penguin (611789) | about 3 years ago | (#36606336)

We are working with hosting providers in implementing this. So far the only thing that raises questions is that MS keeps a canceled subscription for 90 days and all this time charges for it.

"Blue sky of death" when this cloud goes down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605184)

As it will. Often.

Re:"Blue sky of death" when this cloud goes down? (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 3 years ago | (#36605192)

Gives new meaning to "cloud kicker".

Leap years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605214)

What do we do on day 366? And is that February 29? Or December 31? Or January 1? Help me, Microsoft!

Re:Leap years? (1)

ace123 (758107) | about 3 years ago | (#36605444)

What do we do on day 366? And is that February 29? Or December 31? Or January 1? Help me, Microsoft!

It's okay: we won't have another leap day until 2016, so Microsoft didn't need to code that logic into their software. 365 days is enough for anyone.

Don't worry: in 2015, Microsoft will release a new version, Office 366, which will offer you the full yearly experience for only one of the cheap monthly prices listed below (assuming you pick the right plan)!

  . /- $2/mo for Plan E
  / $4/mo for Plan K1
  \ $6/mo for Plan P
< $10/mo for Plan E1 or K2
  / $16/mo for Plan E2
  \ $24/mo for Plan E3
    \- $27/mo for Plan E4

Pick your plan today, before it's too late. The 366th day cometh!

Re:Leap years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605772)

What about next year, 2012? With your careful planning, I suspect you work for Microsoft.

Who do you want reading your docs? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605228)

Who do you want reading your docs? Google or Microsoft?

Neither, thanks.

Re:Who do you want reading your docs? (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 3 years ago | (#36605418)

Who do you want reading your docs? Google or Microsoft?

Neither, thanks.

Can I interest you in this high-quality, ultra-protective tin-foil hat? Only $199.99.

Re:Who do you want reading your docs? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#36606790)

This isn't really paranoia, it's common sense! Putting your mission critical apps on someone else's servers is just silly. What happens when your net is down (and it will be)? What if their servers go down and you have to go tell your shareholders why everyone is idle?

Cloud is just another word for damp vapor.

Re:Who do you want reading your docs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605564)

Microsoft, because I expect businesses/gov't to eventually be on their ass about data privacy like they are with Windows. But Google only marginally less so.

I'm more afraid of online startups and random phone apps than either one of them.

Sharepoint 2010 - Core of the Business Web Apps (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605256)

We adopted MSFT's big-brand business suite, SharePoint 2010, several months before it launched last May. It took a full 6 months to set up the environment, plus additional time to make it even remotely useful for the enterprise. The level of in-house expertise and infrastructure needed to make a business run on MSFT products (Outlook, SharePoint, etc) is obscene.

And it's quickly becoming outdated, sorry MSFT.

At another business (I switched, thankfully!), we use Google Enterprise. The level of support we need to provide for e-mail and document collaboration is radically lower and feels fundamentally different. Instead of FIGHTING with our systems to keep them online, we can innovate and develop new and cool things because our time doesn't disappear into the black hole of "Correlation ID errors" and arcane Outlook glitches.

MSFT, I hope you learn what it means to provide cloud services, and do provide a worthy competitor to Google and other providers! Then, we'd have some exciting innovation! In the meantime, pah... sorry guys. I know you work VERY hard. But PLEASE tell Ballmer to step aside so you can do something that isn't designed by the Corporate Committee!

Re:Sharepoint 2010 - Core of the Business Web Apps (2, Interesting)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605626)

We adopted MSFT's big-brand business suite, SharePoint 2010, several months before it launched last May. It took a full 6 months to set up the environment, plus additional time to make it even remotely useful for the enterprise. The level of in-house expertise and infrastructure needed to make a business run on MSFT products (Outlook, SharePoint, etc) is obscene.

And it's quickly becoming outdated, sorry MSFT.

At another business (I switched, thankfully!), we use Google Enterprise. The level of support we need to provide for e-mail and document collaboration is radically lower and feels fundamentally different. Instead of FIGHTING with our systems to keep them online, we can innovate and develop new and cool things because our time doesn't disappear into the black hole of "Correlation ID errors" and arcane Outlook glitches.

MSFT, I hope you learn what it means to provide cloud services, and do provide a worthy competitor to Google and other providers! Then, we'd have some exciting innovation! In the meantime, pah... sorry guys. I know you work VERY hard. But PLEASE tell Ballmer to step aside so you can do something that isn't designed by the Corporate Committee!

We had the same experience with Sharepoint. We embraced it wholly, too, amidst the shitstorm of try to get to work right. When we finally got fed up with weekly expensive calls back to Redmond, we got sucker punched when we discovered the back end database structure is an opaque nightmare and Sharepoint was essentially holding our data hostage. We won't touch sharepoint again, and I have heard similar experiences from other companies in my area.

Sharepoint is a EDM and Workflow Engine (4, Interesting)

kervin (64171) | about 3 years ago | (#36606728)

If you're comparing Sharepoint with Google Docs, I'm not sure you fully understand what Sharepoint brings to the table.

I'm actually wrapping up a Sharepoint 2010 installation this month. It's on time and budget. The company now has their entire Workflow process, including custom C# workflow/document rules that were developed specifically for their needs.

Google Docs and Sharepoints are not even similar products. If you can go with either for your needs, then by all means go with Google Docs. Because that means you're really not using Sharepoint properly.

Re:Sharepoint 2010 - Core of the Business Web Apps (1)

FreelanceWizard (889712) | about 3 years ago | (#36606032)

SharePoint is the problem. Outlook and Exchange are actually pretty easy to get up and running, assuming you don't do something stupid like get Small Business Server.

Where I work, we're very Microsoft, but for our collaboration needs, we use a combination of e-mail, Lync, and MediaWiki. SharePoint is rightly avoided like the plague it is.

Re:Sharepoint 2010 - Core of the Business Web Apps (1, Funny)

PNutts (199112) | about 3 years ago | (#36606414)

Outlook and Exchange are actually pretty easy to get up and running...

I'm going to grab some milk and re-read this so I can can shoot it out my nose laughing.

Re:Sharepoint 2010 - Core of the Business Web Apps (1)

atamido (1020905) | about 3 years ago | (#36606432)

Have you played with SharePoint 2010? 2007 was a nightmare, but I'm curious if they've fixed any of the management issues from it.

Re:Sharepoint 2010 - Core of the Business Web Apps (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 3 years ago | (#36606238)

We adopted MSFT's big-brand business suite, SharePoint 2010, several months before it launched last May. It took a full 6 months to set up the environment, plus additional time to make it even remotely useful for the enterprise. The level of in-house expertise and infrastructure needed to make a business run on MSFT products (Outlook, SharePoint, etc) is obscene.

I'm not surprised to hear this, or the other comments agreeing with you. I looked at Office 365 when it launched in beta, and my impression was that it had some things to offer businesses, particularly smaller business who don't want the hassles of managing their own Exchange Servers. But when it came to SharePoint, I was kind of taken aback that Microsoft had just ... given you a SharePoint Server. "Here ya go!" Not only did the SharePoint UI not resemble the UI of the rest of the Office 365 suite at all -- click the link and it's like you've navigated to a different service entirely -- but there were no starter templates, no walk-throughs, no nothing. Just a SharePoint Server. "Do with it what you want!" I imagined exactly what you say -- just getting it into a state where it would be useful for a small business would take months, and even then, you could never be sure you'd "done it the right way" unless you hired professionals to build it out for you.

Good offering in my opinion (1)

WikiChris (1664907) | about 3 years ago | (#36605262)

Open/Libre Office is free and that's what I use but to be fair it looks like this is a pretty good offering all things considered.

Not wasting my time again (2, Insightful)

DeathSquid (937219) | about 3 years ago | (#36605330)

After suffering through the hell that is the web interface to Outlook, why would I waste my time with another steaming pile of Microsoft web UI? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Re:Not wasting my time again (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605530)

After suffering through the hell that is your post, why would I waste my time with another steaming pile of troll? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Re:Not wasting my time again (0)

DeathSquid (937219) | about 3 years ago | (#36606380)

Ooops! Looks like I annoyed the AC Microsoft fanbois shill.

Re:Not wasting my time again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605572)

Because it works the same with browsers that aren't IE now? That's one of the features. It's just as good as or better than zimbra.

Re:Not wasting my time again (5, Funny)

dingfelder (819778) | about 3 years ago | (#36605870)

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I think you meant: fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." -- george bush

Re:Not wasting my time again (1)

c (8461) | about 3 years ago | (#36606268)

After suffering through the hell that is the web interface to Outlook, why would I waste my time with another steaming pile of Microsoft web UI?

Because a Microsoft sales drone took your CIO out golfing, then to a ritzy strip club? Or was that a trick question?

Re:Not wasting my time again (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#36606802)

Microsoft strip club? I'll never get that image out of my mind...

Good product for business (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605340)

Lets face it, if you work in a common office enviroment, you have come to grow and lover MS Office. This simply takes it to the next level. I believe that there should be a free version for peronal use, but this is still a great tool.

Re:Good product for business (1)

Meshach (578918) | about 3 years ago | (#36605410)

I believe that there should be a free version for peronal use

There is one here [openoffice.org] .

Re:Good product for business (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 3 years ago | (#36606296)

I believe that there should be a free version for peronal use, but this is still a great tool.

You're probably just a troll, but why should there be a free version for personal use when there isn't any "personal use" for the product? Pretty much everything you get from Office 365 is for collaborating and communicating with other people (SharePoint Server, Exchange Server, Lync, etc.). If all you want is the Office Web Apps, cloud storage from Microsoft, Webmail, and stuff like that, then there are other ways to get that from Microsoft free for personal use.

Office 300... (1)

korgitser (1809018) | about 3 years ago | (#36605344)

... or as they call it, uptime in exess of five sevens.

Ribbon? (3, Interesting)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 3 years ago | (#36605388)

Does it have the horrible ribbon thing that the newer versions of Office have? If so, I think it will have a hard time catching on (I tried that "See How it Works" link on their site but they wanted me to install Silverlight). No one I know took OOo or Symphony seriously until MS came out with the ribbon interface. It was at that point they felt the need to see what type of competition was out there.

Re:Ribbon? (3, Informative)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605416)

Does it have the horrible ribbon thing that the newer versions of Office have? If so, I think it will have a hard time catching on (I tried that "See How it Works" link on their site but they wanted me to install Silverlight). No one I know took OOo or Symphony seriously until MS came out with the ribbon interface. It was at that point they felt the need to see what type of competition was out there.

The web app versions of Word and Excel look very similar to their desktop counterparts, including the damn ribbon. The rich version of Outlook does not for whatever reason.

Re:Ribbon? (2)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 3 years ago | (#36605476)

I don't understand why they don't just make the ribbon an option. I can never find anything on it. Fortunately, I rarely have to. I just use Excel when I need to view a spreadsheet that won't play nice with Symphony. I feel sorry for the guy who has to author them.

Re:Ribbon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36606084)

Different teams - OWA, sorry, Exchange WebApp, comes from the Exchange team which have their own ideas, the others come from the web apps team, I'm guessing they're part of Sharepoint programmers as that's where these first appeared.

Yeah - Microsoft is really a bunch of warring tribes. And the Exchange team is spectacularly arrogant. I think it's a symptom of the Exchange team trying to dictacte to the Office team; whereas Sharepoint Web Apps are trying to emulate what the Office team does.

Re:Ribbon? (1, Flamebait)

webheaded (997188) | about 3 years ago | (#36605448)

Seriously dude, just get used to it. The ribbon has been out for 4 years now, for crying out loud. It is actually quite convenient if you take the time to familiarize yourself with it. Or you could just whine and never learn anything, I guess.

Re:Ribbon? (2, Interesting)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 3 years ago | (#36605542)

Or I could just avoid Office like the plague whenever possible, as I've always done. Unfortunately, my boss doesn't let me get away with avoiding it completely, but he doesn't realize I use Symphony 90% of the time (damn you Excel spreadsheets!).

The last thing I want to do is spend my time learning where the icons are on a MS interface. I could be doing important things, like trolling Slashdot.

Re:Ribbon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605544)

Seriously dude, not whining about it, simply not buying it.

Re:Ribbon? (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about 3 years ago | (#36605642)

Seriously dude, just get used to it. The ribbon has been out for 4 years now, for crying out loud. It is actually quite convenient if you take the time to familiarize yourself with it. Or you could just whine and never learn anything, I guess.

Yeah dammit! If I like the ribbon and find it easy to use, then you must too! Even if you don't like it, get used to it! There's no way that the previous UI was better! One size fits all and if you can't handle the ribbon, you're stupid.

(in reality, I don't like the ribbon and find it to be harder to use than the previous menus, I can never remember where things are - my artistically inclined wife, however, loves it - I guess she's more spatially/icon oriented and I'm more textually oriented. Fortunately, I can use Libreoffice for most of my Office document needs)

the ribbon still sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36606202)

Four year, eight years, sixteen years, won't matter... the ribbon will still be one of the worst user interfaces around.

Re:the ribbon still sucks (1)

xSauronx (608805) | about 3 years ago | (#36606540)

The only thing that still bugs me about it (and i use office 2007/2010 semi-regularly) is that icons change when i downsize the window. It kicks the familiarity i have with the interface in the balls almost every time, but Ive gotten used to it.

Sometimes I like the changes they have made, sometimes I still hate some of it. Ive used it so long, however, that looking for something in OOo or older versions of office is a waste of time. Ill never find what I want in those anymore. *snaps fingers* oh well.

Re:Ribbon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36606676)

It actively prevents me from finding what I want to do, leaving no glimpse of where to even BEGIN looking.

The graphic designer purge must begin soon. Long live the functional.

Seriously Dude you fail at understanding users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36606696)

French is easy. It's been round for years, just learn it. Nevermind that other crappy irregular language you hated at first but eventually got used to and are really comfortable with and are able to explain and help your friends with even the worst most obscure problems.

Couldn't think of a car analogy but I'm pretty sure insulting the French could become pretty popular.

Re:Ribbon? (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#36606812)

Seriously dude, AIDS has been around for 30 years now. Just get familiar with it.

Re:Ribbon? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605480)

Do you always whimper like a fag when things change?

Re:Ribbon? (3)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 3 years ago | (#36605510)

Do you always whimper like a fag when things change?

Do you always post AC when using homophobic pejoratives?

Re:Ribbon? (4, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | about 3 years ago | (#36605524)

I'm baffled by the intense dislike of the Ribbon. I expected to hate it, but very quickly found it a great thing - probably one of the nicer changes that Office has seen in a long time.

What, exactly, is so annoying about it? Barry

Re:Ribbon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605670)

I like the ribbon too, except for one thing ... press alt, and the whole darn document disappears!!

Re:Ribbon? (1)

BeanThere (28381) | about 3 years ago | (#36606118)

I've been "forced" to use it for literally years on one of my main machines now, and I can't even being to remotely get used to the damn thing.

Re:Ribbon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36606194)

I've been forced to use it for the last four years and I've grown used to it, but I can't say I like it. Why?

1) It takes too long to learn, unless you set aside time specifically for training. I used it for two, maybe two and a half years before I got fed up and started looking for training materials. By that time, I hadn't even figured out that I could hide the damn thing!

2) It takes too long to use. The inconsistent splattering of icons and arbitrarily enforced tab groupings encourage hunt-and-click behavior, drastically reducing productivity.

3) It takes up too much damn space. Not everyone carries a 24" monitor with them everywhere.

Re:Ribbon? (1)

atamido (1020905) | about 3 years ago | (#36606396)

I'm baffled by the intense dislike of the Ribbon. I expected to hate it, but very quickly found it a great thing - probably one of the nicer changes that Office has seen in a long time.

Agreed. It was a little annoying in Office 2007 because some applications used it, and other didn't. Outlook 2007 didn't use it, but it was used when creating messages, which was just ridiculously inconsistent. Now that Office 2010 uses it consistently across the board, I find it better in many ways (although worse in a few). For most simple tasks, it exposes the available options better.

In my experience, most people that use it for a month or so have no complaints.

Competing with Google? More like with native apps. (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 3 years ago | (#36605506)

Really, it's not just competing with Google's offering. It's competing with Apple and anyone in the future that follows Apple's iCloud for Documents lead by using native apps as a front end for seamless cloud syncing behind the scenes. People have dinged Google Apps over the years because they're allegedly not as good as native apps (I'm not taking a stance on that either way in this comment), but there's a middle ground between an app that's either only on your machine or only on the web, and it looks like it has the potential to be the sweet spot, since it offers a fully native experience with the everywhere access brought by the cloud.

too late to the party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605540)

My (small) company has moved all our documentation (technical and marketing) to the cloud, but we use Google docs. Why would we even consider this offering from MS, given the crap in their history?

Sorry, MS, but you lost all your street cred years ago.

What's the point? (2)

DogDude (805747) | about 3 years ago | (#36605578)

Can somebody please explain what the point of this is? I don't get it. A file server isn't complicated or expensive. I do own a small business, and I read all of the marketing stuff, but I can't find a single reason why I'd switch from plain ol' Office + fileserver + hosted Exchange. If anything, I'd have to spend MORE money on bandwidth.

Re:What's the point? (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 3 years ago | (#36605972)

In a distributed environment (such as multiple ppl working from home), this makes good sense. In addition, you do not have to deal with admining much, etc. There is a decent use for this. However, Office 365 will NOT be a good choice. It will no doubt be designed to lock you into MS and only MS (though it may support apple with an inferior approach just to keep the FTC goons off their back).

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36606046)

Fewer IT staffers.

Re:What's the point? (2)

BeanThere (28381) | about 3 years ago | (#36606122)

A file server isn't complicated or expensive - IF you happen to have someone with half a clue in your organization. Believe me, not everyone has that luxury - the world is pretty "stupid" out there. I think a lot of small (non-tech, e.g. a small florist or whatever) businesses would find this simplifies things for them.

I'll just call it epic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605606)

FAIL. If they think it's so good and they are confident, then why don't they just kill off the desktop app?

Re:I'll just call it epic (1)

Dracos (107777) | about 3 years ago | (#36605792)

  • Desktop Office is one of the cash cows that keep MS out of the red
  • Like so many markets/product niches, MS insists they must "me too" their way into cloud services

High-performance video editing (3, Funny)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 3 years ago | (#36605608)

I stopped reading TFA at "For instance, the Office Web Apps version of PowerPoint doesn’t have the high-performance video editing tools found in the desktop version..." They actually used High-Performance and PowerPoint in the same sentence. You've got to be kidding me.

Re:High-performance video editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605732)

I use the video editing capabilities in PowerPoint all the time - and they actually are fairly "high performance" relative to 99% of potential users...

System Requirements (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605620)

"Minimum requirements for Office 365 include Office 2007+, IE 7+, Windows XP SP3+ (see full requirement list below)."

What's the point of a SAS product that requires you to install the desktop version first...

Re:System Requirements (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#36606778)

"Minimum requirements for Office 365 include Office 2007+, IE 7+, Windows XP SP3+ (see full requirement list below)."

What's the point of a SAS product that requires you to install the desktop version first...

Paying for it twice. What's wrong with you?

They still haven't figured it out (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#36605790)

There are some fundamental problems with this - the biggest of which is you can't use it unless you already have Office on your desktop. How did they not learn from this mistake the first time around?

I believe the main reason Microsoft hasn't completely crashed and burned in the enterprise yet is simply inertia - people are very used to MS Office, and they are very resistant to change. After a faculty-driven mandate we've been trying to transition our users to Google Apps - mainly the mail and calendar. You know what's been the biggest obstacle? People who use lots of nested mail folders. These users have looked at gmail, they've specifically commented on how nice it is you can "have a message in two places" (e.g. place multiple labels on a single message)... yet they are just so locked in mentally to Outlook, they can't (or refuse to) adjust. Even when I've shown them how to use the lab's nested labels feature to mimic the folder paradigm, in the end they say "but it doesn't look like Outlook".

It's probably a lot like the complaints about Office's ribbon, now that I think about it.

On a side note - funny thing is, most of those same faculty that mandated these changes have refused to actually make the move.

Re:They still haven't figured it out (2)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605828)

There are some fundamental problems with this - the biggest of which is you can't use it unless you already have Office on your desktop. How did they not learn from this mistake the first time around?

Just FYI, you don't need any local software installed, in fact you don't even need windows. I have it open in a browser on my Debian laptop right now, Slashdot in another tab.

Re:They still haven't figured it out (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#36605892)

Just FYI, you don't need any local software installed, in fact you don't even need windows. I have it open in a browser on my Debian laptop right now, Slashdot in another tab.

Do you have access to all functionality? If you go to Microsoft Office 365's system requirements page [microsoft.com] , it specifically lists certain versions of MS Office (and the Windows OS) as being requirements for this. At the very top of that page it states:

"To get the full Office 365 experience, we recommend that customers meet our system prerequisites. Minimum requirements for Office 365 include Office 2007+, IE 7+, Windows XP SP3+ (see full requirement list below)."

Re:They still haven't figured it out (1)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605936)

Well, the specific package we have allows for us to download the Office 2010 native apps, which I'm not doing here of course. Maybe that's what the requirements are for. As far as functionality goes, I can create and edit all the MS formats, and the Outlook interface has all the features of the desktop version AFAICT, so I wouldn't take the requirements as a non-starter.

Re:They still haven't figured it out (1)

angrydj (623755) | about 3 years ago | (#36606360)

I know Word and Excel 2010, and Office 365 does not have the same functionality as Office 2010 for making documents and spreadsheets. It is is trimmed down version of Office 2010. It sounds like very few slashdotters here have learned about other changes since 2007 besides the ribbon (styles). I know it's hard to embrace moving away from the old menus that everyone is used to using. Try searching Google for a video and they will show you how to do anything you want to do. I found several videos on making a "Bar and Whisker" graph, a function that even Excel 2010 doesn't do without a work around.

Re:They still haven't figured it out (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 3 years ago | (#36606372)

Do you have access to all functionality?

Yes, you have access to it -- but "having the full Office 365 experience" means you're not limited to editing documents in Web-based apps, you can use the desktop Office suite. There are components that integrate the desktop Office apps with the Office 365 services (albeit not very well, in my experience). The catch is that you need Office 2007 or later. So what it's saying is, if you want the full experience, including the ability to use a real word processor, spreadsheet, etc., with Office 365's hosted services, then you will need to have Office 2007+ installed. Office 2003 won't work, just like OpenOffice won't work. If you don't have Office 2007+ installed, you can still use the Office 365 services, but you will not get "the full experience."

Also, there are some price tiers for Office 365 that include a copy of the desktop version of Office 2010 for every seat. You download the suite from the Office 365 servers and each copy is automatically licensed.

At least _try_ to fool me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36605814)

M$, it's strange to say this, but don't go on perfecting an awesome product... there's no need: it's not about technology or features.

I may be forced to use them at work, yet if I can I won't use your products -- not any 36* product whatever it may be, nor your "excellent" desktop products and not even the best Linux distro you might make (you couldn't, it's just rhetorical).

It's about you, whom I learned to not trust. So, please, show some respect and, at the very least, try to fool me into thinking it's not an M$ product, will you?

Why should anyone trust them after bCentral ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 3 years ago | (#36605940)

you know, their ecommerce service which they suddenly announced to shut down, in the face of their clients who were using it for selling thousands of products big inventories for years ? suddenly and out of the blue, and gave them 1 month to migrate away from their proprietary, incompatible store format to anything else ? leaving aside what the domain/address situation would end up ?

why would any moron trust them with their sensitive, irreplaceable data ?

Will it work with none MS or Apple systems? (0)

WindBourne (631190) | about 3 years ago | (#36605960)

I seriously doubt it. ANd if it does, my bet is that it will fail within 2 years.

Re:Will it work with none MS or Apple systems? (3, Interesting)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about 3 years ago | (#36605994)

I seriously doubt it. ANd if it does, my bet is that it will fail within 2 years.

I work in an organization where my department is all Linux, and the rest of the company is Windows XP or 7. Moving to Office 365 for me has been a benefit, actually, because with the exception of Lync I can access all the web versions of the apps using Iceweasel/Firefox in my linux machine. As far as Apple goes, I hear there is a web version of Lync you can use because Apple can run Silverlight. So, if like me you are all FOSS, the only thing you are missing out on is Lync.

Re:Will it work with none MS or Apple systems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36606350)

It works fine on my Mac. The silverlight clients provide a quite good experience, and with my home internet, it is pretty responsive. So, yes, non-MS clients and OS's work.

FWIW, I was using Chrome browser. Outlook, Word, Excel (didn't try PPT) all work fine, and behave like the local installed versions.

Microsoft vs. Google? (-1, Flamebait)

geekmux (1040042) | about 3 years ago | (#36606052)

"...should it be taken seriously? And how does it stack up against Google Apps?"

Uh, with regards to ease of use, and a K.I.S.S. design methodology...Microsoft vs. Google? Uh, is this even a serious question?

It is so bad at Microsoft, they consider obscene complexity a profitable revenue stream.

I'm Impressed (1)

Medevilae (1456015) | about 3 years ago | (#36606102)

Missing features AND too complex. That one is a bit hard to do.

Great price for Hosted Exchange (2)

DalDei (1032670) | about 3 years ago | (#36606236)

I agree with all the Sharepoint stuff. And cloud hosted documents is not a one-size-fits-all ... although I can see the benifit. But ignore all that. Just look at Exchange Hosting. A company I'm with is paying about $14/month per user for Exchange hosting with ActiveSync (for iphone syncing) and a "vast" limit of 150MB/user mailbox. And thats with a year's commitment. For 7 users this is quite cheep compared to managing our own exchange server (complete with MS Server licensing and a M$PhD to administer it). I tried the Office 365 beta and was up and running in minutes on my desktop , iPhone, and iPad with full exchange/outlook both native (all devices) and web. Pricing - $6/user with 25GB / mailbox. Thats just seriously kick-a$$ pricing if your org wants exchange. (mine does, I tried moving us to pure IMAP but the boss likes his Outlook, contacts, calendars etc). Its a flipping steal. As soon as were done with our (ignorantly signed 1 year contract last month) I'm moving us over to 365 ... unless the smoke has been let out in the meantime. You can take your Sharepoint and web office apps .,... I just want full exchange/outlook for dirt cheep pricing. -David

You people have that much problems with sharepoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36606444)

So i guess all you guys were employed at the company's that my consulting company came in and fixed up your sharepoint installations.

I have never seen more horrible completely screwed up installs of a product until i worked for a sharepoint consulting company. Its like no one even bothered to take the time to even attempt to read the install guide.

Little background, i never even heard of sharepoint until i started at the consulting company and within a year i was troubleshooting and fixing installs. Not really hard if you bother to take the time to read the install docs. I am still in awe how some of these "IT Professionals" had jobs. Don't blame the product because you are inept at your job.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...