Talk:Microsoft Office

Market share

"Office is [...] although its market share is currently decreasing with the rise of viable free and open source alternatives."

Where's the evidence for this claim? Explicitly including "free and open source" doesn't sound NPOV to me when "rise of viable alternatives" would suffice in the intro section.

Patience,my friend, I am currently researching through Microsoft's own SEC filings where this is stated very clearly. I will post the link to the supporting documents.

If the claim, "most popular" is made, there should also be mention of what it is "most popular" against. Otherwise, it is not NPOV.

My apologies for my somewhat sloppy editing procedures.

58.69.210.219 04:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thanks for providing a source for it. The main problem is that the intro is rather longish at the moment. Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 04:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can include just the reference?

I just think its important to cite two things in the intro: The growing popularity of open source competitors, and Microsoft's own response to the threat, which is Windows Live, essentially an online version of MS Office, since I believe that will become an important part of the "MS Office" product space. 58.69.210.219 05:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about editing 100% correctly, just keep providing references for claims - there are plenty of people here who do minor cleanup - some with automated bots. Windows Live perhaps is a good idea to have in the intro but perhaps you might consider moving some of the competitor stuff to the "Alternatives" section. Thanks :). Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 05:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the phrase "in the world" to "on the Windows and Macintosh platforms" as this is more NPOV. MS Office does not exist on the various Unix platforms, it doesn't exist on mini and mainframe type systems, so to use the phrase "in the world" would require defining what "part of the world" it runs on.

Gazpacho reverted the text.

re:Gazpachos claim. Microsoft Office is the number one "in the world" which part of the world? That first sentence of the last paragraph of the intro IS A Marketing statement, not NPOV.

Are we talking about MS Office 2003, which has lower installed base of older versions of MS Office? If MS Office 2003 is number one, what is the reason for the Dinosaurs ad campaign of Microsoft? Is it becuse users of old versions are not migrating?

I think there is no dispute that THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF MS OFFICE COMBINED are number one in the Windows space, a slim number one over Apple's Appleworks and iWork, but it is also indisputable that MS Office has ZERO presence in other computing systems.

Linux, Solaris, and my car and microwave oven (both of which have embedded computing systems) don't run Microsoft Office. From an NPOV standpoint, it should be qualified what "part of the world" it runs on. If there is a claim that because it is number one on Windows, it is number one in the world, then let'substantiate that with real figures of actual Windows market share (as opposed to Intel platform market share, which covers just the hardware and can run, aside from Windows, Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, or even a proprietary system as an embedded controller).

If Gazpacho wants to delete references to competitors, including references pointing to Microsoft's own statements and replace it with a marketing statement, at the very least there must be a reference to that claim.

There is no place in Wikipedia for marketing hype. 58.69.210.219 06:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Microsoft Office works on Linux in conjunction with CrossOver Office. I've also removed the Windows Live stuff you added -- it's completely wrong. Windows Live has nothing on it that qualifies as a "subscription service" for Microsoft Office features. There is Microsoft Office Live, of course, but that's web-hosting. Warrens 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that there are ways to run MS Office and other Windows applications on Linux. Heck, it even runs on ReactOS. It will probably even run on my car's Engine computer if someone makes an emulator for it. But, what is its presence there? It's leadership in Windows and Mac does not imply dominance in other operating systems.

And how does one explain to the Wiki users that there is Windows Office Live? What was Microsoft's rationale for creating it? Could it not be the issues they mentioned in the SEC filing you've just deleted? How do you address the needs of Wiki users researching the rationale of Windows Office Live? MS Office is a program, and then suddenly Microsoft decided to make a pay per use low cost licensing version for the same product. Since its an evolution of Office, why is it not explained, in Microsoft's own words, why this evolution was made?58.69.210.219 05:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft's rationale for creating Windows Office Live seems to be quite simple -- it's for small businesses that need a domain name and web/email hosting. The Office Live Essentials edition also has some tools for small businesses to centralize document storage and some company information; it's basically for people who don't have a file server in-house. This stuff is all extremely straightforward, doesn't replicate features that are in Office, and is clearly documented on their web site: http://officelive.microsoft.com/default.aspx.

As for the SEC stuff, I didn't delete that bit; someone else did. Understand, however, that Microsoft's acknowledgement that they have competition is not relevant information when introducing the subject of Microsoft Office, which is a software application suite. It's important when writing an encyclopedic article that we stay focused on the subject at hand, and not get carried away with esoteric side-points that have extremely limited informational value for readers coming to the subject for the first time. Warrens 09:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also qualified the statement about the de facto standard. The de facto standard is the file formats created by Office, not the program itself, since many other Office suites also open and save documents in MS Office formats.

I think, though, that there should be a subcategory discussing MS Office File formats: previous, current, and future ones.58.69.210.219 05:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting this change. The software itself is the "de facto" standard -- that's what it is important to get across. The file formats are ubiquitous only because the software is popular, not because of any inherent merit in them. Warrens 09:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the file format is the de facto standard since most alternative Office productivity applications need to support it, since it is the file format that is the de facto standard. Alternative Office suites can open and save MS Office files through converters and filters. The MS Office program cannot be a standard, de facto or otherwise because it is a proprietary product. If you receive an MS Office file: Word, PowerPoint, or Excel, what is your certainty that MS Office was used to create and/or edit it? It is the documents that are passed around, not the program, so these are the ones that can be called a "de facto" standard. —58.69.210.219 05:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're apparently confused about what the English word "standard" means in this context. Please review the dictionary definition here, specifically where it defines it as a noun as "Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence", and as an adjective as "Normal, familiar, or usual: the standard excuse." and "Commonly used or supplied: standard car equipment." I know a lot of "anti-Microsoft" advocates who advocates "open alternatives" tend to forget that in the real world (the one which Wikipedia addresses), the word "standard" does actually mean something other than "technical specification". That is how the phrase is used here, and to anybody not obsessed with the subject of "open alternatives", it makes complete sense. Warrens 13:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance of 'open alternatives' to the discussion? The discussion is whether or not the de facto standard is the proprietary product or the file formats created by it. The definition you've posted: "Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence" explains it: The de facto standard is the 'practice' of saving documents in MS Office formats, regardless of the programs used to create them.58.69.210.219 05:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office Assistant

I thought the Office Assistant appeared in 97

After googling, I believe you are right. -- Notheruser 00:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

AutoShapes in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint

They are not very fair. How come they have a triangle, square (designated as a rectangle because it can be any rectangle as long as you don't hold down the shift key,) pentagon, hexagon, and octagon but no heptagon?? How come they have a sun and a moon but no earth?? How come they have a heart and a diamond but no club or spade?? The smiley face can turn into a frown by moving the mouse on the yellow rhombus located on the mouth, but they designate it as a smiley face. What they designate as a can is properly called a cylinder.

Err.. I think it's meant to be more user-friendly. Believe it or not, there are some people who don't know what a cylinder was, but if given the example 'can', they would know what you were talking about. --DX 05:47, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone who has used the Office Binder for something useful please describe it in the article? (Don't worry about the English, I'll clean it up if necessary.) Thanks. -- I including ms access with excel, word power point Mpt 00:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Spe88 19:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Application names

Hi,

So, after the release of Microsoft Office System 2003, the applications' names turned into Microsoft Office sg. For example: Microsoft Outlook --> Microsoft Office Outlook; Microsoft FrontPage --> Microsoft Office FrontPage; etc.

So, aren't the articles of the applications supposed to have they current name?

--Szajd 10:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Not all. Going by the title bar on the applications, older apps keep their old titles (e.g. Word), while new ones get "Office" in the middle (e.g. OneNote). Enochlau 00:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

prices

if someone could list some (reccommended) selling prices that would be most informative!

Since prices change, perhaps a link to a pricing service or online store would be more applicable?

also, can we break down the different packages of MS Office? Some versions don't include PowerPoint for example, but its not readily apparent in the list of versions.

I did some work on this page

I added a one-paragraph summary of each of the four basic Microsoft Office programs. I believe that this adds greatly to this Wikipedia article. I hope that this helps a little in countering Wikipedia's open source bias. Perhaps we can remove the "cleanup" template and replace it with a "requests for expansion" template? Andrew pmk 19:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I did some more. I added a list of 2003 Microsoft Office editions and the {{Infobox software}} template. Can I remove the cleanup template now? Andrew pmk 19:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Service Packs/Service Releases

"Whereas Windows uses "Service Packs", Office used to release "Service Releases". However, after Office 2000 Service Release 1, Office now only release Service Packs."

Windows 95 had Service Releases. Office 2000 had Service Release 2. Both Windows and Office have had Service Releases, but the current convention for both is to issue Service Packs.

So I would suggest that the wording in the article needs tweaking.

--EdB 01:57, 21 July 2005 (BST)

FrontPage

Contrary to what the article said, Microsoft FrontPage is NOT included with Microsoft Office 2003 Professional Edition.

Here's a confirmation: FrontPage 2003 Frequently Asked Questions --68.127.152.9 12:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (sorry, I hit back)[reply]

Office 12

A few links for new Office 12 section or page

WebDAV

Hello, does someone know what is the first version to support WebDAV? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.170.137 (talk • contribs)

Alternates

Should they be called alternates or competitors? Alternates would indicate equal standing and as we all know Microsoft Office has the majority market share to the programs listed.

Perhaps the OpenOffice section in this article should point specifically to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird as Mozilla Thunderbird has a compatible license, fully cross-platform and comparable in relative goal marked share to products like Firefox and OOo? --Tdp 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are sections describing MS Office components full of competitor information, while similar info does not "clutter" (IMO) OO.o page? This article stinks of biased POV to include mention of competitors wherever possible. Alternatives are listed in a separate section. I think that is good enough. Jxyama 22:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the OO.o page? All the alternatives are listed there as well. --Karnesky 03:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Have you? Each component description, such as "Writer" does not mention explicit competitors. It mentions Word in passing since Writer mimicks the look and feel. Jxyama 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOffice.org#Alternatives lists alternative suites, just as Microsoft Office#Alternatives does. OO.o Writer is compared to Word; OO.o Calc to Excel, OO.o to PowerPoint, OO.o Base to Access, OO.o Draw to CorelDraw, OO.o Math to MS Equation editor, and the macros are even compared to VBA. Additionaly alternatives are listed on pages for each component of both office suites. If you see a problem with bias, you're welcome to try to make an edit which improves NPOV. --Karnesky 19:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOffice.org#Components I was referring to this section lacking mention of competitors. Jxyama 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does list the de facto standards in that section, most of which are MS Office components. I'm failing to see the bias there.... The other apps are also listed in the main articles for each individual component. As I said--if you see a problem, fix it! --Karnesky 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who added back (effectively) mostly OO.o component comparisons but that's just silly. Office predates OO.o - to include comparisons to OO.o is factual, but I argue to be based on biased motives. "Mirroring" the content in OO.o article in an attempt to legitimize it does not address the fact it's not necessary. If anything, take MS Office mentions out of OO.o article instead. Most people who know OO.o knows MS Office, but not the other way around. I argue that adding mention of comparisons to Office in OO.o adds knowledge, while reverse does not. Jxyama 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

Why is the logo changed so early? The older one, Image:MicrosoftOfficeLogo.png, is more common today and Office 2007 is not released, the currently image (Image:Microsoft Office logo (2006).gif) is not transparent and very small. The page should be updated with the new logo until Office 2007 is released. See the official site for Office, [1]: the logo is the one in Office 2003 and not 2007. 1() 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

How did u manage to enter the version of the release? I see nothing when u click 'edit'. No Latest release template etc. --Shandris 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The magic that is Infobox Software2. I'd like to change it back; magic on wikipedia is a bad idea, unless there's really a need for it. And there isn't in this case. Any objections? -- Steven Fisher 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the magic is fairly transparent--it doesn't take too much effort to locate Template:Latest stable release/Microsoft Office. The idea of using templates for stable versions is a good one & would make software comparison pages more maintainable. --Karnesky 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I might feel less negative on the subject if there weren't two product version numbers in one template there. Office is probably a bad example of how this should work. -- Steven Fisher 06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia Talk page in Proper English not in Shortened or otherwise please say 'you' instead of 'u' I'm sure that it must be hard to translate for persons not able to read English.

Start article on Office Mobile

Can someone start an article about Office Mobile that runs on PDA's? Wikipedia so far has no information whatsoever about Office on the PDA's. Thanks. User:RaviC

You're right: Windows Mobile 5.0 --Shandris ^{the azylean}^cat 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office vX

Should this article mention the Office X vs. Office vX thing, or is it just not notable enough? Perhaps in the trivia? (If you don't know what I'm talking about, say "Office X" as "Office Ecks" quickly three times.) -- Steven Fisher 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply incorrect

"Office made its first appearance in the early-1990s, and was initially a marketing term for a bundled set of applications that were previously marketed and sold separately." Well simply untrue. Office was released as long ago as 1989. [2]. I do notice that this article seems to suggest in the way it is written that Office was originally a Windows product. Perhaps it needs rewriting to give the true history of the product ie produced for Apple first then developed for Windows later.

"Microsoft Office is a suite of productivity programs created or purchased by Microsoft and developed for Microsoft Windows, and Apple Computer's Mac OS and Mac OS X operating systems." Two things commentable about this sentence. 1. As the term "Mac OS" includes "Mac OS X" there is no need to reiterate it. Simply remove the Mac OS X reference. 2. I would change it to "and developed originally for Apple's Mac OS and later Microsoft's own Window's Operating System.

Candy 13:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of Microsoft Office

I changed the logo for Microsoft Office because the old Microsoft Word Screenshot in my opinion gave a bit of bias to Microsoft Word and not the whole of Office. I also did this because it showed an information box and one doesn't generally put in random screenshots unless it is a wiki of that particulr program. Better? --Oliverdavison 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Publisher

Although Microsoft Publisher is listed in the Common Office Programs, the rest of its blurb downplays its importance. And I have to agree with this downplaying. I feel it should be moved to the Other programs included in the Windows versions section, given both its relative lack of importance (no more so than Access, certainly!) and single-platform nature. -- Steven Fisher 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alternatives

Please discuss at Talk:List of office suites. --Karnesky 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Service Packs

Why is it that no information about SP1 and SP2 are listed in the article?

SP2 was released on Sept 27th 2005.

Proof here: http://news.com.com/Microsoft+Office+2003+SP2+released/2110-1011_3-5884533.html

Can someone please add that to the article, as I don't exactly know here to put it.

Probably because we would have to start including update packs for the Mac version too. Totally uninteresting and possibly only vaguelly interesting even to the most hard nosed geeks. Candy 20:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diambiguation

I think Microsoft Office Should have a diambiguation page due to its past, present, future programmes plus Information in general (like this page). But don't know how to create disambiguations, could someone with a little time do that and I'll neaten up?

There is a beta for "future programmes", but that is taken care of with "preview". I also have not found any articles dealing with Microsoft Office's past (I'd like to create one dealing with the differences between the different versions (like compare 2000 to 2003), but I only know 2003 (so I do not know how they are different)). I might be able to do some of the compatability things shown in 2003, but that probably wouldn't fit. —MysticMetal 17:07, 02 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]