Talk:Microsoft Office 2007: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:09, 26 August 2006

Microsoft Office 2007 was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}.

Page renaming

Why did you have to follow some stupid internet rumors and rename the page? There were neither change on the official Office "12" page nor press release from Microsoft. Please, revert!

http://www.office12watch.com/, amongst many other places is reporting that "Office 2007" is an unsubstantiated rumour. Internally and externally, Microsoft is still calling this product Office "12", and the article name should reflect that until we have an officially announced name. I've renamed the article back to Microsoft Office "12". Warrens 07:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-6040071.html?part=rss&tag=6040071&subj=news says it's called Office 2007 now. Nova Prime 07:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use as my default Word Processor, Microsoft Office Word 2007 (Beta) so hopefully that clears that up any dispute, though this issue seems to have been settles. Aeroplane 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire suite is officially called 2007 Microsoft Office system. So the page name issue is still not settled. --soum^সৌমোyasch 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Umm, I downloaded the beta and now, the default page setting is is now that there is a paragraph break after each paragraph and the line setting is set to multiple so each time I have to change it to single space and change it so there isn't spaces between the paragraph-a big pain! Can you change the default setting, anyone? Signor Pastrini 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be in the paragraphs dialog box. --soum^সৌমোyasch 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Could somebody please create an infobox at the top of the page with a screenshot from [1] this page? Also does anybody know the release date? Djone2121 07:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the screenshot from the link, thanks! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more stuff from the Microsoft Preview site. Could someone please include the relevant screenshots in the right places? Djone2121 07:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We just can't add stuff from the preview site though. We need to paraphrase some of it at least... otherwise we have a copyright violation on our hands... as for the images I'd hesitate to include any more because of copyright issues... maybe I can crop them though.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, will start paraphrasing. Do you want to do it or me? or we can both do some if you want. I'm not to familiar with the copyright stuff... I thought it would be ok as long as I put in the quotation marks and cited my source.

Would it be useful to state somewhere that when Microsoft questioned what users wanted from the next version of office that 9 out of 10 people questioned answered with a feature that already existed? This led Microsoft to realize that the power of Office is somewhat lost inside its confusing layouts and menus, which led to this versions new design. Hamdev Guru 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be very useful :) --Wulf 19:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PR?

Sounds like a public relations message to me. It can't be definitely stated that it "will present a streamlined, uncluttered workspace that minimizes distraction and enables people to achieve the results they want more quickly and easily," as few people have used it yet. Maybe this is the intended outcome, but it sounds pretty assertive.

Anyone else notice the pinstripes, brushed metal titlebar, and Aqua-y toolbar buttons?

Yea - I fixed that part. For the most part though - the rest of the article are direct quotations so its obvious they are PR. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article. All the stuff under Whats New is direct quotations off the Microsoft Office 12 Preview site. Yeah its a load of PR, but its the only information around at the moment. Does anyone have a (estimated) release date yet? Djone2121 07:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it going to be released concurrently with Windows Vista? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I havent heard Microsoft reference to this product as Office Vista, only Office "12" (its codename). This is used on the Microsoft beta page. Try searching for "Office Vista" on the Microsoft site, then try "Office 12". Plz fix --203.206.92.193 07:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, why would anyone rename the page to Office Vista?

I second this. Please rv it, or will you please "find-and-replace" the 12s in the article so its consistent. --Perfecto 15:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page back to Microsoft Office 12 --Djone2121 09:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries and Live Preview

First of all, I thoroughly respect anon's contributions. Second, I'm the one who added the second paragraphs of Galleries and Live Preview. My initial mistake is that, in my first edit, I added the previewing ability in Galleries. So I fixed my error the next day by moving the previewing ability to Live Preview.

Isn't that what makes sense? Previewing changes is called "Live Preview", and an assortment of pictures showing how layout changes would look like is called "Galleries". Photoshop's image enhancement dialogs have a "preview" checkbox to do "Live Preview", and Print Shop and Microsoft Works have galleries of layout choices, but not the ability to preview them on the document.

--Perfecto 16:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - that makes sense I suppose :). Though I'd avoid comparing products to other specific products made by other companies (such as Print Shop) unless you have to. Also, if the anon reverts you again maybe consider rewording it a bit to take into account the previewing part. Just some ideas for ya :).Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, folks :) I disagree with comparisons, because combination of galleries and live preview is nothing like two separately, but have it your way. It'd be cool if you put back my note about not having to ok separate dialog and preview living in the same document.

Link farm warning

Whoops, this article looks to be growing its own little link farm. ;-) Wikipedia is not a link repository and all that. I think there's especially a whole lot of blogs in there, but also starting to become a considerable number of review links. -- Jugalator 17:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... there's a tricky balance here. A lot of those blogs are for Microsoft employees, and a lot of them *do* have useful information that is updated on a regular basis. The Channel 9 videos are good, too. Should we try to roll in of the good information from those sources into this article? Repetitive things like screenshots should probably be pruned down... Warrens 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the links. The page is about future product, it is not easy to find good sources on Google :(

SharePoint Designer

Has it been confirmed that FrontPage is being renamed SharePoint Designer? If so, please cite your source. Or did the author get confused and believed that Windows SharePoint Services (which is a separate software in itself) was the new incarnation of FrontPage?Viltris 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FrontPage has indeed "gone away" in Office 2007 -- they've gone so far as to say that it won't be supported after June 2008. It's being replaced with two tools: Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer 2007 which is descended from FrontPage, but focuses more towards intranets. And, Expression Web Designer is Microsoft's new "web design" tool for world-facing web sites, focusing more on design and web standards and all that. Source: Microsoft PressPass.Warrens 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Okay, we've got an interesting conundrum... Microsoft is at times referring to the entire Office line of products as "2007 Microsoft Office System", but individual Office suites are called, e.g., "Microsoft Office Professional 2007". I've renamed the page "Microsoft Office 2007", reflecting the latter usage, because it's the more well-known naming scheme (who really refers to it as "Office System" anyhow?) ... *sigh* Microsoft and their "special" naming schemes. :-) Warrens 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official name is "2007 Microsoft Office System". So what should be done with the title of the article? --so U m y a S ch 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First doc editor without menu

Microsoft Office Word 2007 is the first document editor without pull-down menus since the heydays of menu-less WordPerfect for DOS and Lotus 123. But the menu-less ui is consistent across most of Office 2k7. So why just Word? Either Office 2k7 be mentioned, or the entire line be pulled out. --so U m y a S ch 08:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does mention the entire suite; it merely offers Word as an example. Like saying "NASCAR is extremely popular; driver Jeff Gordon attracts thousands of fans..." ---B- 09:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section bugs me since it's little more than a copyvio plus that sentence you mentioned. As for the sentence itself, BSchorr is right; it's an example. Explicitly characterising it as such is probably the right way to go. Warrens 10:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entire description of new features (Ribbon, c.tabs, galleries et al) are just direct quotations with next to none explanation. It needs some rework. --so U m y a S ch 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's tackle that when Office Beta 2 comes out and reaches a wider audience, so we can at the very least provide our own screenshots instead of copping shots from MS employees. Warrens 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I am starting work on the text. But as I am on a vacation (till 23^rd), I cannot be swift.--so U m y a S ch 03:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Copyrighted text

The UI section of the article is more or less a replica of this article, with the same structure and offers just quotations. There is no need of the "Design goals" section, it is merged into the lead and the UI section. I am initiating a re-write, starting with the "Ribbon", which I will expand in the coming days. Please chip in, and also help with the other subsections of the UI section. See the "To Do" list. --so U m y a S ch 10:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

IMO, this reads a bit like a sales pitch. I know it's not properly out yet, so getting a balance will probably be tricky, but I tink it quotes from the sales blurb a bit too much. --H2g2bob 14:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we know that. But its not even a full fledged POV. It doesn't even copy properly, half the features are not even mentioned :-). Anywayz, if you read the previous post, you would know that we have started working on it. Expect lots of changes in the next few days. --so U m y a S ch 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking really good now, congrats and good luck for getting good article status! --H2g2bob

Thanks. --so U m y a S ch 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editions

Those prices in the table in the article is ?? Dollars? What kind of dollars are they? You should relize that Wikipedia is viewed by the whole world and not USA. By the way prices are unnecessary in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winxptwker (talk • contribs)

I added the prices because I felt that it reflects an important peice of information about this product. Wikipedia is a new breed of encyclopedia. I also changed it to reflect they are US$ I thought, maybe wrongly, that $ was almost universally refered to as US$ unless otherwise noted. Sir hugo 13:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, in my view, $ means Australian Dollars. :P Winxptwker 17:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

Well, the article has changed quite a lot in the last few days. Now we need a feedback. Please comment on the article. --so U m y a S ch 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade?

What is an upgrade? Is it from MO 2003 or from a "more basic" version of MO.

Aleksei 10:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done!!!

The known list of most-needed topics are now covered. Cheers to all who helped get this done. --so U m y a S ch 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Looks like to me that the pictures are starting to overtake the article. Shouldn't the Office Application screenshots be in a gallery at the bottom? Winxptwker 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that way. They are just to the right of the respective application, thus making it easier to relate to what is being talked about. --so U m y a S ch 06:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And from now the article can only grow in text (barring a screenshot of project, which i cant provide as i have no plans to install it), further diluting the effect of the images. --so U m y a S ch 12:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BETA

Just a question, is the BETA free?Because I want to download it today. - Bioran23, using I.P address 202.85.42.140

Yes it is free. Available from: http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/beta/download/en/default.mspx Winxptwker 05:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

How come not all the office softwares got the file icon replaced? - Bioran23, using I.P address 222.166.196.132

Sorry, I didnt get u. If u r referring to the Office button thingy, then it is there in only those apps using the ribbon UI have it. --so U m y a S ch 07:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black vs. blue screenshots

Not really a very important issue at all, but it seems like all the screenshots of the new UI that we have are with the black color scheme. Given that the default color scheme on most computers is blue, should we not have at least some shots in the blue scheme for accurate representation? rdude 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that really matter? Its takes, what, around 5 clicks to switch. --so U m y a S ch 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. No, it doesn't really matter. Especially given that this is a beta and for all we know by release the default scheme will be chartreuse. rdude 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, a much better color scheme would be thistle. --soum^সyasch 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I thought of taking offence on your sarcasm, but later decided against. :-) --soum^সyasch 17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take offense at my words. Sorry if they sound offending. They are not meant to be so. --soum^সৌমোyasch 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. Sorry if I came across that way. rdude 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAiled GA

Sorry for the person who thought this was a GA but it doesn't satisfy the Stability criteria. Re-nominate it once the product is on the market (that means 2007). Lincher 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System requirements

Possibly the most important point for me is missing; that Office 2007 requires Windows XP. If this is strictly true, then this is going to affect a large number of corporate users, small business users, and I am assuming some non-Windows users. --Adx 01:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-windows users? When did any windows version of office work on anything but windows? And Mac versions on non-Mac systems? Office 2007 is windows only. The system requirements can be viewed here. --soum^সৌমোyasch 05:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Wine users might be affected. Definitely it will be NT only. I don't think this should be a suprised to anyone (was 2003 even 9x/ME compatible?). I'm surprised they did not decide to support W2K, but I guess this is MS... Nil Einne 13:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wine is not officially supported by MS it would be foolish to expect MS to make their product Wine compatible. But if Wine can successfully emulate XPSP2 and higher, it should run fine. --soum^সৌমোyasch 13:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etc

Supported blogging sites include MSN Spaces, SharePoint, Blogger, Community Server etc.

The etc to me implies most blog sites are supported. If this is true, it'll be far better to say Most blogging sites are support such as... or something similar. Nil Einne 13:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all blog servers are supported. But the major ones are. But, since only these blogging systems are known to be supported, its better not to write anyting original by infering from the "etc". See this blog for more info. --soum^সৌমোyasch 14:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Communicator from Ultimate edition

According to Microsoft, suite comparsion, communicator isn't available in the Ultimate edition. I was going to remove it, but I wanted to see if someone knew what I don't. - James

Bonus Pack?

Can anyone dig up a cite for this? --soum^সৌমোyasch 07:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OEM/RETAIL

Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007 will also be for sale at OEM.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,2001181,00.asp

External links

Do we need that many "external links". I think most of them are unnecessary. —Jared Hunt August 21, 2006, 15:11 (UTC)

Text-to-Speech

Is it still possible in Excel as with 2002 version read aloud each cell and if so, how?

@@ Line 193: / Line 193: @@
 Do we need that many "external links". I think most of them are unnecessary. —''[[User:Jared Hunt|Jared Hunt]]'' <span style="color:gray;font-size:70%;">August 21, 2006, 15:11 (UTC)</span>
+== Text-to-Speech ==
+Is it still possible in Excel as with 2002 version read aloud each cell and if so, how?