Beta
×

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!

Is Microsoft Office Adware?

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the somebody-tell-lavasoft dept.

Microsoft 180

An anonymous reader writes "Office may fall under Microsoft's own definition of adware. It links to third-party commercial add-ons, includes up-selling promos, requires cookies for certain functions, and collects technical information. While this is like a normal day on the web, should the commercial office suite be held to a different standard and possibly be considered adware? The article also notes that clicking advertising links in Office will bring up Internet Explorer, regardless of whether or not it is the default browser. We discussed Microsoft's decision to turn Works into adware a few months ago.

cancel ×

180 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No but this post is (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371216)

SMOKE MARLBORO!!!

Better question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371334)

Should CmdrTaco be considered a homosexual pedophile? He wears a buttplug at work, likes to have sex with other men, and doesn't like having sex with women. Additionally, he often expresses a desire to suck off pre-pubescent boys and fantasizes about tossing their salad.

Re:Better question (1)

professional_troll (1178701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372372)

One word... Vatican

OOo (5, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371236)

I think I've realized something about Microsoft: They really want us to NOT want to use Microsoft products. I finally get it -- It's not sufficient for them to own the market; in order to feel fully dominant, they must own it against our will. It's as though they think that if we wanted to use their products because they were good for us and worked in our best interest, it would not be true show of their power, for we'd be rational in wanting such products. Only if they can force their software down our throats whether we want it or not, do they have full assurance that their power is real.

Re:OOo (1)

rdradar (1110795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371350)

in order to feel fully dominant, they must own it against our will. It's as though they think that if we wanted to use their products because they were good for us and worked in our best interest, it would not be true show of their power, for we'd be rational in wanting such products. Only if they can force their software down our throats whether we want it or not, do they have full assurance that their power is real.
Money is about showing your power [showyourpower.net] . No surprise there :-)

Re:OOo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371598)

"in order to feel fully dominant, they must own it against our will."

So, they're just like niggers having sex with white women?

Re:OOo (2, Funny)

irtza (893217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371626)

well, I looked at the breakdown of moderation on this post. As usual, the antimicrosoft crowd modded this as insightful because I fear they truly believe that MS doesn't want us to use there software. Not a single Funny moderation? How does this happen. The saracasm in this post is radiating "mod me funny".... that would also allow the offtopic moderaters to rest easy (though they should have a field day with this post)...

Re:OOo (1, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371692)

Because it's not a joke. Microsoft are selling out their client base to third parties while they continue to have a client base. They've got multibillion dollar back room deals, they're being paid to put everyones PC under a centralized lock and key system, and if they succeed, they'll get a percentage. It's not like it's a secret.

Re:OOo (3, Insightful)

irtza (893217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22373134)

well, the problem is about how you define who MS's client base is... it certainly is not the consumers who end up buying their machines - those are just annoyances that they must deal with. Their clientbase is system builders and more recently content developers. They will cater to those making the content that moves the boxes. They are essentially no different than ASUS or any other component provider (except for their monopoly and willingness to abuse it). These companies do things according to what there clients (the computer builders) want so long as it fits there goals. The fact that these eventually move on is not there problems. if people want MS to lose there monopoly, pressure needs to be put on companies like Dell and HP to push pressure upstream for better hardware support in alternative operating systems. Right now, the lockin ability that MS provides these people is important (i.e. Dell software that ships with there systems isn't so portable thanks to measures taken by MS). This is also why they can push adware on one hand while simultaneously sell software that takes other peoples adware off your system.

Re:OOo (2, Funny)

xs650 (741277) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372248)

The best humor has a large element of truth to it. In this case, it was completely true.

The fact that it upsets MS fanbois is a bonus.

Re: What MS wants to own (5, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371662)

I finally get it -- It's not sufficient for them to own the market; in order to feel fully dominant, they must own it against our will.
They want ~your will~ itself. Microsoft wants to own the user. Every time the user starts a Redmond application, the application is Microsoft territory just like an embassy.

And you had better have a passport, because on entrance you and your computer become subjects of El Presidente Señor Lanzero de Sillónes Ballmero.

Re: What MS wants to own (5, Interesting)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372338)

Almost everything Microsoft does makes a whole lot of more sense if you look at it from the standpoint that they hate their customers, but still want their money. I have never worked with products that exude more of a sense of contempt than those from Microsoft, and Vista is possibly the best example.

Re:OOo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22373098)

Ha!

Mod parent +100 (if only) - he must know Ballmer personally!

My penis is adware (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371242)

GET ON YOUR KNEES! GET ON YOUR FUCKING KNEES BITCH!

(in layman terms, I'm instructing you to knell down and give me fellatio). Thank you for your attention.

Don't think so (5, Informative)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371256)

I got a free copy of Office 2007 Pro from the "Power Together" Vista + Office giveaway. Haven't noticed any ads anywhere, it sure doesn't meet my definition of ad ware.

Re:Don't think so (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371386)

I know people who have paid $400 for it, that doesn't meet my or their definition either. No, MSO is not adware. It may 'suggest' that the user do it the MS way, and might try to pry more money out of the end user, but that does not make it adware.

Re:Don't think so (1)

ahziem (661857) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371776)

Wait until the next MSO version comes out. Then your MSO 2007 will have ads.

Re:Don't think so (5, Informative)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371792)

Try typing a math equation with Equation Editor (which in itself is a decently capable equation editor, if not a bit unwieldy). As soon as you close your equation, it will pop up an advertisement for MathWorks or some other bullshit "upgraded" equation editor. Seriously MS, if I thought a feature was lacking I'd seek 3rd-party plugins myself, you don't need to pimp this to me.

Re:Don't think so (3, Interesting)

sticks_us (150624) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371902)

Yes, exactly. TFA actually includes a similar example (btw, who knows what kind of kickback scheme is behind this,
but you can bet there is one). You throw in the fact that calls home with usage/tracking data, and you know what?
We're technically talking about something very similar to adware.

Of course, most joe-sixpack people don't care. This suggests that there's some convergence of advertising and
application functionality in our future (see also: Google Apps)

Re:Don't think so (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22372072)

What joe-sixpack is going to use equations in Word? What joe-sixpack actually knows this feature exists? Those that use the fairly slow an annoying built in thing may not know there is an alternative without this. For those who actually need to use equations on a day to day basis use things like matlab and mathematica.

Re:Don't think so (1)

sticks_us (150624) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372634)

Well, there are joes sixpack, and then there are joes sixpack.

Anyone who *really* knows what they're doing is going to be using LaTeX.

Re:Don't think so (2, Interesting)

contrapunctus (907549) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372038)

(I don't use MS Office (or Windows) anymore and I try to not use anything MS)

I remember buying MathType in 1997 or so because I found it in Word. I was grateful as I wouldn't have known about MathType otherwise (then).

I guess my point is that it was helpful (for both me and the third party) since it led me to find a program I used a lot from a small 3rd party.

I hated having to find programs ($20 or $30 for something I needed to use once so I didn't do it) though that did what Office should have been able to do (I really can't remember what now but I remember being really angry because they were simple things).

Re:Don't think so (3, Informative)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372382)

OK, I just tried it. I didn't get an ad or a suggestion that I try some other product. I was using Office 2007 Pro Plus and inserted the equation in Word. Maybe I have to have the "internet services" turned on? I'm sure you've seen it - I am not contradicting you there - I just am not seeing it on my copy and I would actually LIKE to see it as I am in desktop design (3rd level design with a small amount of support) and anything my customers may see, I would like to know about first. Any idea how to reproduce this?

Re:Don't think so (1)

WARM3CH (662028) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372658)

No it doesn't. You're probably talking about previous versions of Word but the 2007 version has its own, much improved equation editor that has nothing to do with MathWorks.

Re:Don't think so (1)

shadowofwind (1209890) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372988)

Right, though as I recollect equation editor only spams you when it thinks you're frustrated. Years back equation editor was significantly more efficient to use than it is now (at least as I use it), then they crippled it and added those messages.

Use Open Office (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371258)

Use Open Office

Actually, screw it, VI forever!

Re:Use Open Office (2, Funny)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371484)

NO NO

EMACS forever

Re:Use Open Office (3, Funny)

Shadow_139 (707786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371560)

EMACS sucks monkey-balls...., Real MEN use VI. http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/real_programmers.png [xkcd.com]

Re:Use Open Office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371822)

Guess one of the Mods is a Emacs user, tough luck dude.

But please, this is a classic flame war so please FLAME ON!!!!

Re:Use Open Office (4, Funny)

benplaut (993145) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372806)

REAL men use butterflies!

Of *course* not! (4, Funny)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371266)

Is Microsoft Office Adware?

Of course not - If so, Windows Defender would block it. Which it doesn't. So no problem, right?

Re:Of *course* not! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371988)

Ever since installing zone alarm several years ago, I always wondered why MS Word, PowerPoint, etc were always trying to get to the internet. I didn't think they were adware. I thought just spyware. Now I know. DUH

Yes. No. Noone cares. Move Along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371286)

Slow day, eh?

Re:Yes. No. Noone cares. Move Along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22373056)

Noone [google.com] cares?

Ah Yes. (-1, Redundant)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371298)

Yet another reason why I am running no MS products...

Sounds OK to me (4, Interesting)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371318)

This is the low-end PC market. Knocking $40 off the manufacturer's build costs is probably major for them in this market. I know, Open Office, etc, but Works 7 (the last one I've seen) is actually pretty decent for what most people use, and the naive user who's buying these PCs just knows "Microsoft" for "Officey" stuff.

I would have been glad to get a free shrink wrap Works a few years ago. My mom was sending me documents in Works Word Processor format and I had to go buy Works to read them. Trust me, teaching "Save As . . . scroll down to Word... " wasn't practical with her at the time. It was a lot less painful to just go buy Works.

Finally, I hate to tell you, but the Works 7 Word Processor isn't actually that bad. It looks exactly like Word did a few years ago, and has all the features most people use.

Re:Sounds OK to me (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371394)

It looks exactly like Word did a few years ago, and has all the features most people use.

Yes, and there are a lot of people that wish Word still looked like it did a few years ago.

Re:Sounds OK to me (2, Funny)

zlogic (892404) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372114)

You mean with Clippy and everything? :-)

Re:Sounds OK to me (2, Informative)

misleb (129952) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372144)

You did your mom a disservice by not recommending Open Office to her. And I'm not saying that because I'm an Open Source evangelist. She's going to have a heck of time exchanging documents with others. For the longest time I didn't even know MS Works still existed. I though (well, hoped and prayed) it had died like 10 years ago until I started working at a college and a faculty member came to me with a .wps file that she needed to print. I had to look it up. Then I had to tell her we didn't have any software to read such a file.

Fortunately, my mom's new computer was shipped with a trial version of Office. She used it until the trial period ended and then, on her own with no prodding from me, went and downloaded Open Office.

Even if the Works Word Processor isn't actually that bad, there's just no excuse for using it because of its incompatability with everything else. It is a cruel joke perpetuated by Microsoft.

-matthew

Re:Sounds OK to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22372844)

The free Microsoft Word Viewer 2003 came out in September 2005 and can read Works 7 files among others.

Let the market decide (2, Insightful)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 6 years ago | (#22373000)

Perhaps the manufacture should just give a genuine itemized invoice rather than bundling and let the market decide.

Windows? (4, Funny)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371322)

Wouldn't Windows fall under adware? Looking at the checklist it seems like they all apply... Especially Vista.

On a side note, when I click on an email address in my Windows Mail, it opens Office Outlook. No, it is not set as my default mailer :(

Re:Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371436)

Steve Ballmer is out to create the "greatest advertising platform there is, bar none" via his initiatives to do so, noted here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HTkA9L2J2gY&feature=related [youtube.com]

Baller the fool is going to RUIN Microsoft... because he can't deny his own genetic nature (to rip off & steal, buying something for a buck, & selling it for 3 to PROFIT, etc. et al).

On a personal note: Know what really ticks me off/is one of MY personal "pet peeves"? Seeing something that's GOOD, get TWISTED TO THE BAD, by greedy scum (the kind that think money can fix their problems, when they don't realize money is NOT the 'answer to everything').

Re:Windows? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371698)

to rip off & steal, buying something for a buck, & selling it for 3 to PROFIT, etc. et al

      This is how Microsoft was BORN. I suggest you revise the company's history a little.

Re:Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22372884)

Baller the fool is going to RUIN Microsoft... because he can't deny his own genetic nature (to rip off & steal, buying something for a buck, & selling it for 3 to PROFIT, etc. et al).
Hopefully some day in the near future Microsoft will relize that Baller needs to go. Hopefully he will be gone and his replacement isn't such an ass. Someone who would see FOSS as an friend, not an enemy.

Re:Windows? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371800)

Actually I think both the home Windows and Office will turn into Adware at some point. At the moment OEMs pay something less than $50 to Microsoft to install Windows. But they can offset that by installing crapware.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070525-windows-tax-is-50-according-to-dell-linux-pc-pricing.html [arstechnica.com]

So it turns out that not including Windows saves the consumer $50 from the regular list price. This amount is not too far off from what a large OEM like Dell would pay for a volume discount for Windows Vista Home Basic (the regular OEM price is about $95). Many value PC sellers try to make up for the cost of a Windows license by bundling demo and trial versions of software such as AOL (affectionately known as "crapware"), for which they receive money from software companies looking to increase their distribution levels. Dell is no exception to this practice, although on their web site it allows customers to select the option of not including various applications.
But that $50 leaves a gap at the bottom of the market that might be colonised by Linux. Sub $200 PCs will end up paying too high a percentage for this. Microsoft could avoid this and rake in more of the cash if they could make a cheaper, ad supported version.

Error in title? (1)

Fallen Seraph4 (1186821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371330)

I could be wrong here (haven't used MS on my home comp for ages) but I thought that the adware problem was with MS Works, which is distict from MS office?

Re:Error in title? (0, Flamebait)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371688)

To quote the great Samual Jackson "English Motherfucker do you speak it?"
if you can not comprehend the summary, you have no use for this type of software.
Maybe this will be of use http://www.marks-english-school.com/games.html [marks-english-school.com]

Google ads suggestions (1)

ssjx (1235532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371406)

Well,the google ads on the article site point to some adware removers, maybe one of them will help...

I read it as... (5, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371418)

I read it as "Badware". My ad.

I guess we need to consider... (4, Interesting)

stubear (130454) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371432)

...Leopard to be adware as well. My copy came with links to iDisk/.mac and trial versions of iWorks with a few files that default to opening in Pages to get you hooked. While I can get rid of iWeb and iWorks, I cannot get rid of the iDisk link in the connect to menu item. Now that I think of it, iTunes is part of this whole adware strategy as well. Then there's Quicktime. Don't have the Pro version? Apple is going to tell you what you're missing in the menus by ghosting list items and putting a "Pro" tag next to everything. Personally I find this far more deplorable then a few links in what amounts to nothing more than an interactive/context sensitive help "palette". While many rabid anti-MS geeks on Slashdot might not find these links very helpful, some typical office workers will (and I'm sure Microsoft has the user studies to back this position up, unlike the typical Slashbot that has only anecdotal evidence they like to compare to actual data).

Re:I guess we need to consider... (4, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371548)

So any software which contains links to its creator's webpage (or its own, if one has been created) is adware?

You're right: based on the summary and Microsoft's description Leopard and office would fall under the category, but then again, so would nearly every piece of software I use to some degree. Who voted for this article to be featured, anyway? Just another excuse for pointless debate...

Re:I guess we need to consider... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371568)

I just realized this - google search is adware. And so is slashdot. Holy phuck batman!

Re:I guess we need to consider... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371608)

Notice the part where it says third-party add-ons. All the things you described are supplied by Apple. Also, Leopard will bring up whatever the default browser is. As far as I remember, it doesn't require cookies either, and the only technical information it might collect is from opt-in crashes (AFAIK, Office also only collects technical info if you opt-in, so I think that point is over-exagerated).

Re:I guess we need to consider... (1)

klubar (591384) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371854)

Don't forget to add almost all of the Adobe products. The splash screens contain links and almost all of the help topics are adware.

If you really don't want adware, just unplug that RJ45 ethernet cable on the back.

Instant...no adware!

Re:I guess we need to consider... (1)

kitgerrits (1034262) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372868)


Not necessarily.
You just turned 'convenient purchase opportunities' into non-functional advertisements.

And you took away the Mac's most powerful feature:
downloading por^H^H^H reference material from the Internet.

Re:I guess we need to consider... (0)

screeble (664005) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371986)

Please stop spreading misinformation about the menu rendering functions of a GUI you obviously know nothing about.

One of the nicest things about xnu is how much control you have over Aqua and how it functions.

The menus for Finder (and many other applications) are "open source" for fucks sake.

Open Terminal.app

cd /System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj/Menus.nib/
(substitute your native language as appropriate)

cp objects.xib objects.xib.bak
sudo vi objects.xib
Find and remove xml for iDisk. Remove array definitions. Save.

Restart Finder. If you make Finder FUBAR boot from the DVD and replace the file in Terminal.

Don't like what you see in Quicktime? Change the channel.

Use VLC or enable full-screen [slashdot.org] with an AppleScript.

Re:I guess we need to consider... (1)

screeble (664005) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372348)

I hate to reply to myself but the change is even easier than I thought originally if you have the developer tools installed.

Open Terminal.app

cd /System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj/Menus.nib/
(substitute your native language as appropriate)

sudo tar cvf Menus.nib.tgz Menus.nib
sudo open Menus.nib
Use Interface builder to remove definitions for iDisk.

Save file to desktop.

Delete the old directory or Menus.nib and copy the edited file back into the Finder resources tree.

Turn off iDisk in the Finder sidebar preferences.

Re:I guess we need to consider... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22372256)

I bought a mac and noticed this as well, it really IS annoying and I totally wouldn't mind if it was classified as adware until these bits are made optional or removed. You can't actually remove the links to .mac in the finder, etc, afaik.

Sliverlight Prompts (3, Interesting)

artgeeq (969931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371434)

Sure, why not? I have been using Microsoft TechNet for a while now, and I kept getting these pop-ip prompts to install something called "Silverlight" just about every time. I have to use TechNet to do my job, so I finally just relented and hit the "OK" button.

Maybe Microsoft should come up with a new logo program: "Microsoft adware Aware"

Re:Sliverlight Prompts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371702)

just get the printed version link... but yes, it's ridiculous to serve simple documents with frikin silverlight.

I guess I better use Open Office then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371444)

Oh Lawdy! MS Office must be adware. I better go get myself a shitty office suite like OO.org.

Get fucking serious people. Isn't this the very definition of FUD that is preached about on this site day in and day out, and is almost exclusively used in reference to Microsoft?

Re:I guess I better use Open Office then (0)

ppc_digger (961188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371680)

Isn't this the very definition of FUD that is preached about on this site day in and day out, and is almost exclusively used in reference to Microsoft?

You must be new here.

Re:I guess I better use Open Office then (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371808)

Asking questions isn't FUD.

Your bias opinion that attempts to reinforce the view that OO.org is shit on the other hand might be classed as FUD. If you had said, "Is OO.org shitty?" I might have taken a different point of view when writing this comment.

Re:I guess I better use Open Office then (1)

pokerdad (1124121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372538)

Asking questions isn't FUD.

It can be. As the saying goes, 40% of questions are statements in disguise.

Its worth pointing out that almost any adware removal company's definition of adware could have been used, as could an enormous variety of commercial software, and still made the same point (that plenty of legitimate software does crap we don't want it to do). And while I certainly can certainly see the irony in using MS for both parties in this topic, the GP is abolutely right that the topic implies something about MS in a manner not unlike how MS attacks Linux. Still, I can think of several companies off the top of my head that have malware removel products, and also have software that could fall into a very broad generalization of what malware is.

To get back to my original point, that questions can be FUD, wouldn't you consider it FUD if MS made a press release titled "Can Your Company Really Afford the High Total Cost of Ownership of OOS?" I bet most Slashdotters would, despite it being phrased as a question.

Re:I guess I better use Open Office then (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372824)

It can be. As the saying goes, 40% of questions are statements in disguise.

To get back to my original point, that questions can be FUD, wouldn't you consider it FUD if MS made a press release titled "Can Your Company Really Afford the High Total Cost of Ownership of OOS?" I bet most Slashdotters would, despite it being phrased as a question.
You're right, questions can be FUD but not in the context of the originally mentioned title of the article.

Asking the question "Is Microsoft Office Adware?" is not the same as asking the question "Can Your Company Really Afford the High Total Cost of Ownership of OOS?".

In the first question there is doubt over the actual claims of Adware in office. In your example question the speaker is making the statement that ownership of OSS has a high total cost even though is may or may not be true.

A question of the same magnitude of "Is Microsoft Office Adware?" would have been "Is the total cost of OSS ownership high?". Both these questions seem reasonable from my point of view without the need to dismiss them as FUD.

Re:I guess I better use Open Office then (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22372578)

Asking questions isn't FUD.
Bullshit. Asking questions can certainly be FUD. For decades it has been a common trick to phrase an opinion in the form of a question to avoid any personal responsibility for it. Watch CNN or Fox News to get a nice helping of this.

Search the internet (2)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371468)

Also uses I.E. when Firefox is the default (in win2k at least)

It drives me nuts because my boss *always* uses that instead of clicking the FF icon which is hindering my attempts to improve the workflow.

Re:Search the internet (1)

xjimhb (234034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371730)

Back in the NT days I found a great solution to this problem. I don't know if it will still work on XP and Vista or not, might need a little tweaking.

1. Get a copy of the ubiquitous "Hello World" program, in any language for which you have a compiler.
2. Compile it.
3. Rename the resulting file "iexplore.exe".
4. Copy it to the directory where the real iexplore.exe resides, thus nullifying any calls to Internut Exploder from anywhere.
5. Copy the file to your boss's computer, thereby forcing him to use Firefox.

Simple, isn't it?

Re:Search the internet (1)

statusbar (314703) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371806)

And then the boss complains to the IT person that the computer is broken. The IT grunt can't figure it out - maybe it is a virus? Run the virus software! it didn't fix it! Hmm! Well, this computer is broken, we need to buy a new one.

Don't laugh, I saw this kind of thing happen.

--jeffk++

Re:Search the internet (1)

Warll (1211492) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371852)

What about just renaming FireFox's exe over Internut Exploder's? Even if it doesn't complete the requested search wouldn't it still open FireFox?

Re:Search the internet (1)

Drasil (580067) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371856)

I would have thought the BOFH would have a lower /. id :o

Maybe Desparationware (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371498)

MS sees the handwriting on the wall.

Warren Buffett saw it back in the early 90s when he said he wouldn't invest in Microsoft, because he didn't see a profitable business model (long term...Buffett's method).

Desperation is driving MS to use everything they can to continue the profit line, including using acquisitions to get what they couldn't create.

I don't have anything bad to say about MS, and use some of their products, but given their CEO's reputation and his lack of experience in any other large company, & changing FOSS world, I have this gut feel that says MS is going to have a REAL HARD time expanding its yearly sales and profits.

Re:Maybe Desparationware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371842)

well, if warren buffett isn't just a moron. and i keep hearing about this handwriting on the wall bullshit but i'm not seeing any real measurable effects of the supposed populace uprising against microsoft.

i bought into all this crap over 15 years ago. none of the great overthrows of microsoft have ever gone anywhere. after a couple of years i shrugged and went back to leading a productive life. call me up when microsoft losses money on the scale of sourceforge. at that point i'll start to consider that maybe it's time to migrate elsewhere. in the meantime i'm not interested in any of the clunky, lackluster alternatives to windows and microsoft office. yes, i have tried them. no, i'm not impressed even when they're free.

oh well, you're just another fuddy foss zealot.

Re:Maybe Desparationware (0, Troll)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371890)

Microsoft's rise was meteoric. Since its captain has not done what is needed to attain orbital velocity, it is going to come down like a meteor as well. Hopefully it will mostly burn up on descent and not impact the real world too badly.

The Year of Office 2007 (3, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#22373158)

MS sees the handwriting on the wall.
Desperation is driving MS to use everything they can to continue the profit line
I have this gut feel that says MS is going to have a REAL HARD time expanding its yearly sales and profits.

67 cents of every new retail dollar spent on PC software goes to MS Office.

Through end of November, U.S. retail PC software sales are up 10.3 percent year over year as measured in dollar volume, according to NPD. By comparison, Office sales are up 50.7 percent, by the same measure and in the same time frame. Office sales are so big, they make calculating broader PC software retail sales difficult. The "magnitude of Office sales relative to the rest of the PC software market is phenomenal. It's the massively huge tail wagging the dog." Retail Black Friday sales of Mac Office were up 215.8 percent year over year. While Mac Office generated blowout sales on Black Friday, Office 2007 sales growth was exceptionally good, too. Year-over-year U.S. retail Black Friday sales of Office were up 65.8 percent, as measured in dollars. The Year of Office 2007 [microsoft-watch.com]

Microsoft's profits are up 79%:

For the quarter that ended Dec. 31, profit rose to $4.71 billion, or 50 cents per share, from $2.63 billion, or 26 cents per share the previous year. Analysts polled by Thomson Financial had forecast a profit of 46 cents per share. Revenue rose 31 percent to $16.37 billion from $12.5 billion in the year-ago quarter, ahead of the analysts' prediction of $15.95 billion in sales.

{and, in what must be the understatement of the year]

"It looks like a very nice report," said Sarah Friar, an analyst for Goldman Sachs. Microsoft Corp. earnings leap 79 percent [statesman.com]

I was sorely tempted to give my response a flamebait title like "The Geek Turns Delusional."

I won't disguise my opinion here that the Geek's increasingly frantic retreat from reality has been the Slashdot story since the posting of Microsoft's second quarter results.

The CDW poll points to a softening of enterprise IT negative attitudes toward Vista. Familiarity, it seems, has bred content: IT departments are happier with Vista's features, particularly in the area of security, and less concerned about the hardware costs of Vista than they were a year ago. Another year will bring further declines in the relative cost of PC hardware -- and make a lot of corporate desktop hardware look even more antique. Only a major economic downturn would be likely to derail current estimates of another strong year for PC sales, so even if Vista remains tied to hardware sales it would do well, and corporate upgrades could finally kick in as old hardware is upgraded. This has been a year when Vista has had its rough edges knocked off, and the marketplace has adjusted its expectations. By Vista's next birthday it should be more differentiated and acceptable for both its consumer and business marketplaces. Assessing Windows Vista On Its First Anniversary [informationweek.com]

Regarding this topic (-1, Offtopic)

squidguy (846256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371500)

Slow news day?

Give me a break. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371512)

An OpenOffice advocacy site talking shit about Microsoft Office? Didn't see that one coming. But I guess Slashdot just has to get their Two Minutes Hate from somewhere...

Of course if this were a Microsoft Office advocacy site talking shit about OpenOffice we would have the FUD-Nazis screaming at the top of their lungs.

But honestly, I can't make myself care about the hypocrisy anymore; I am tired and bored of it even more than I am tired and bored of the whole Roger Clemens thing.

Back on-topic for a second, "adware" is not really a useful term as it encompasses a number of different things, some of which are not malicious and others which are. As long as Microsoft discloses what the software is doing then there really isn't any malicious intent.

Re:Give me a break. (1)

kc2keo (694222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371826)

I agree and I will drink to that!

Re:Give me a break. (1)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372070)

Exactly. IMO the article is anti-MS FUD submitted so we can have our daily dose of M$-bash fodder.

Re:Give me a break. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22372462)

I don't see any Adware in Open Office... Do you?

trolls gone wild (4, Insightful)

xubu_caapn (1086401) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371612)

this is possibly the most incendiary, blatant attempt at microsoft-bashing that ive seen on slashdot. i mean... come on...

Re:trolls gone wild (0, Troll)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371636)

You obviously haven't been here very long, fanboi.

Re:trolls gone wild (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372032)

Yes, this was pretty bad and a blatant attempt at getting hits.

I wonder if Soulskill is Zonk's sock-puppet.

It's been a trend for years. Worse then even MS.. (3, Interesting)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371704)

..is Intuit. Each year if you upgrade your Quickbooks, Intuit spends more effect and intrusiveness trying to up sell you on features and services related to their software. It has become so infuriating that I refuse to upgrade until I have no choice at all, in hopes someone will come up with something better that is functional enough to make me happy.

Wanking off the anti-Microsoft crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371712)

Next up: "Does Microsoft kill baby seals or just cute puppies?"

I am shocked and apalled! (0, Offtopic)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371766)

Where's the yesnomaybe tag?

Re:I am shocked and apalled! (3, Insightful)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372492)

I'm still wondering how many years this stupid tagging beta thing will be left running until the Powers That Be realize it's only another vehicle to make stupid (and occasionally clever) commentary, and is never actually used for "tagging".

A bit biased, perhaps? (5, Informative)

kcwhitta (232438) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371834)

They're looking at Office 2003, when the latest version of Office is 2007. In 2007, Firefox loaded every time I went to a link, whether in Office, via an Office dialog, or through Office help.

The article states, "it is unusual to require cookies or to use them in a desktop application", yet Office Online is the only part of Office that requires cookies. This doesn't seem that strange to me: no local features require them.

I wasn't able to find any ads in Office 2007, but because I'm running the latest version, none will probably show up until the next version of Office is released. Showing a couple of ad links at the bottom of the help text, and only after the user goes into help, stretches the definition of Adware a bit.

DoNotUse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22371882)

Simple answer, amigos. Do Not Use.
OOo and works, KOffice and Star Office can all read and save MS office files. If you are genuinely concerned, just don't use MS office. If you're @ work, why bother? It's your employer's problem and not yours.

Fur realz? (2, Interesting)

mattsgotredhair (945945) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371904)

FTA

On Microsoft.com, Sandi Hardmeier, MVP, concludes her adware definition, "Ads are not bad by themselves but they become a problem when they are unauthorized. Unfortunately, many adware programs do not give users enough notice or control." In Office, where is the "notice or control"?
I don't use Office, so after reading this [slashdot.org] post and viewing the identical page [microsoft.com] that supposedly contains the adware, it's pretty clear that this article is just fud. You have to click for the ad's to even be displayed! How is that not control?! Seriously... an article from OpenOffice.org Ninja? How is it not going to biased?!

Java does it... (1)

Bagels (676159) | more than 6 years ago | (#22371922)

I gotta note here that when I was installing the latest Java SDK a while back, the installer had a banner ad for OpenOffice.org. I have seen some of the described adware behavior in Office 2007 - most notably, it linked me to an official PDF converter at one point - but that was somewhat less blatant than the OOo one.

All I know is... (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372030)

if Microsoft doesn't do something about these software fractions, there is no way they will ever become number one in office suites. Windows ME, Windows 2000? Windows Messenger, MSN Messenger, Windows Live Messenger? Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works? Rover, Clippy? People will become so confused they will evenutally just switch to Linux in frustration and disgust. Two days later they have a brain hemorrhage an die.

PLUS 3, TROLL) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22372078)

been the best, backward aNd said

Of course not! (1)

Renaissance 2K (773059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372118)

Ad-ware doesn't cost $300.

Totally right, especiall for Office 2007 (1)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372134)

Office 2007 is basically an advertisement for the not-free Sharepoint, whatever it's called this week.

Users can't find things that the need to do, but they do discover all of these new and wonderous features.

Re:Totally right, especiall for Office 2007 (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#22373118)

The 'basic' version of Sharepoint - Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0 - is 'free', in that you only need a licensed copy of MS Windows Server 2003 to run it on, and the necessary CALs. Other than that, WSS 3.0 is a free download from the Microsoft site - oh, and its actually quite feature rich as well (yes, MOSS 2007 is more heavily rich, but hey).

Even worse: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22372498)

It's expensive adware.

Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22372800)

For years and years Microsoft has justified the increasing bloat in Office as adding features that customers want. And, now, the latest feature added to Office admits that there are additional things that people want in Office and offers to sell it to them.

This makes my head hurt!

yes it is (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22372870)

if it fits the definition then it is adware. This should be added to spybot's list immediately so everyone can know what kind of crap Micro$oft is putting on there computer
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>