Talk:Microsoft Office: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:58, 21 January 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft Office article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Microsoft

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Software High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Microsoft Windows: Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Apple Inc.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Microsoft Office received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Accident in editing

Many apologies, but this edit was a result of an unintentional accident which may appear to look like a spam edit. I was trying to point out about the skipping of version 13.0 and I accidentally pressed the wrong key with the reference in the wrong box (summary of edit). I've fixed it now.

Thanks. --Marianian (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linux/wine

i think we should list linux/wine as a supported OS, given its ability to run this software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC) i do not think it the category is said to include "officially supported OS's" , it includes any OS that the software runs on, regardless of what the manufacturer aggressively claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

de facto standard

The article made two unreferenced claims about "de facto standard" that I have altered:

Microsoft Word is a word processor and was previously considered to be the main program in Office. Its proprietary DOC format is considered a de facto standard,

The claim is highly contestible, and is clearly non-NPOV. DOC neither is, nor is universally considered, a de facto standard. In fact, problems with interoperability even between different versions of Word it self. Many other tools (e.g. OpenOffice/Writer) supports DOC; however, they do so for pragmatical reasons and prefer their own formats. They have not adapted DOC as a standard.

                    Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet program. It was originally a competitor to the dominant Lotus 1-2-3, but it eventually outsold it and became the de facto standard.

The "and became ..." uses the phrase incorrectly; further, this adds no information not already present. It does, however, give a non-NPOV impression. I have deleted this part.

94.220.249.64 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Many other tools (e.g. OpenOffice/Writer) supports DOC; however, they do so for pragmatical reasons"

Well, yes, exactly. That's precisely why it's a de facto standard: because everything supports it (due to Office's effective monopoly). I think you might be confused about what "de facto standard" means: it does not mean a formally approved standard (that would be de jure standard); it means "a product or system that has achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market forces". No one is claiming .doc is a de jure standard (though your complaints would be correct if they were), but there's no doubt it's a de facto standard. (But you're right that the Excel quote was redundant anyway, so I'm happy to leave that as-is) -- simxp (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove product activation critism

What's with this line? "Since Office XP, Microsoft productivity suite series has been criticized for having Product Activation." A lot of products have product activation. It's is not even referenced and unless there is a valid reason why it has been "critisized" other than that of piracy advocation, I don't think this line should be included.

Rasmasyean (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History - dates

Much of the history has the versions listed. Many have no release dates. This should be included. --Brady Shea (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms - Chinese pricing?

I know a lot of people are critical of Microsoft's decision to sell Office for $29 in China, but a lot more in other nations.

Like Here

Cheers DuggersCup (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link above does not work - the article is still available at: Coursey, David (July 21, 2009). "If China Gets Microsoft Office for $29, Why Don't We?". PCWorld. Retrieved 20 October 2010.

That article references this one: Burrows, Peter (July 16, 2009). "Microsoft's Aggressive New Pricing Strategy". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 20 October 2010.

--Marc Kupper|talk 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

version 13

I would just like to point out how win this is:

Version 13.0 was skipped because of superstition relating to the number thirteen.^[13].

The Logo

The new logo (the yellowish one) hasn't become the official loge yet, isn't it? Even if it has become, don't the new logo has arrow-pointed inner corner shape and lack of four squares? I know this isn't important, but it disturbs me...

--Malikussaid (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.docx and other weird file formats

Here's what should be mentioned in the "Criticism" section (with "ref" links of course), basically: newer versions of Microsoft Office save the files using a different format, for example Microsoft Word saves the file with a .docx extension instead of the .doc used previously. When the user sends the .docx file to someone who uses an older version of Microsoft Office, they cannot open the file without installing the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack, however this is not obvious — they try to open the file and it just won't open. For this reason, I was taught to save files in Rich Text Format before passing onto someone else e.g. as an e-mail attachment. TurboForce (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPC

The article posits that there were problems porting Office to RISC processors like PowerPC, The Mac version has been PowerPC native since at least Office 98, so I don't think that that could have really been a problem. — User:ACupOfCoffee @ 17:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the contradiction: they had trouble in the mid-90s, and got it working by 98. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Microsoft Office 15 will be released most likely in 2013." This informatione is pure speculation and has no reference at all. It doesn't serve any purpose. However, if you decide to keep it in the article I'd like you to add the following information as well: "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2016." + "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2019." ;)

Office 15

"Microsoft Office 15 will be released most likely in 2013." This informatione is pure speculation and has no reference at all. It doesn't serve any purpose. However, if you decide to keep it in the article I'd like you to add the following information as well: "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2016." + "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2019." ;)

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 The article posits that there were problems porting Office to RISC processors like PowerPC, The Mac version has been PowerPC native since at least Office 98, so I don't think that that could have really been a problem. &mdash;&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Comic Sans MS;">[[User:ACupOfCoffee]][[User talk:ACupOfCoffee|@]]</span> 17:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 :I don't see the contradiction: they had trouble in the mid-90s, and got it working by 98. - [[User:Josh the Nerd|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh the Nerd|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Josh_the_Nerd|contribs]]) 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
+"Microsoft Office 15 will be released most likely in 2013." This informatione is pure speculation and has no reference at all. It doesn't serve any purpose. However, if you decide to keep it in the article I'd like you to add the following information as well: "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2016." + "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2019." ;)
+== Office 15 ==
 "Microsoft Office 15 will be released most likely in 2013." This informatione is pure speculation and has no reference at all. It doesn't serve any purpose. However, if you decide to keep it in the article I'd like you to add the following information as well: "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2016." + "Microsoft Office 16 will be released most likely in 2019." ;)