Win8pro

[pparks1]

You keep confusing your opinions with everyone elses. There is no evidence that any significant portion of the computer using public hate Windows 8. All there are is some vocal people on message boards.

Well, while there is no official study that has been published and certified by every agency in the world, my experience with most people that I work with, that I know personally, and my friends from Facebook have almost universally said they don't particularly care for Windows 8. Couple that with the media and stories that have been published endlessly on the web reinforce the fact that it's not just my personal bias against Windows 8 that has corrupted my friends.

I have IT counterparts that I am friends with who work for large and small companies and the general level of interest has been low.

And finally, I attended a Windows Server 2012 conference sponsored by Microsoft and the talks at the vendor booths and in between keynote speeches and breakout sessions weren't raving about Windows 8.

So, while I am certain this doesn't convince you at all, and frankly I don't care....I'm 100% confident that Windows 8 isn't wildly loved and revered.

Honestly, if you give most people Windows 8 with a small amount of instruction (5 minutes) and don't constantly tell them how much it sucks, most people are just fine with it. Really.

Not my experience, I just had to do an overview of Windows 8 to a group of employees who are going to a tradeshow and will be using some Windows 8 touchscreens in our booth, and while I didn't say anything negative against Windows 8...the overwhelming response was "You have got to be kidding me", or "can we just put it back to the way that it was". And these same employees have been practicing for a week or so getting used to it and their general opinion hasn't improved.

 

[lehnerus2000]

The ribbon is EXACTLY the same size the previous versions of Office with two rows of buttons (the default layout). It's not "huge". Further, the ribbon collapses with a keypress, or can be set to auto-hide and only come up when you click on the tab. You can't auto-hide toolbars in office 2003. Office 2007 also had a qucklaunch bar that was quite customizable, and Office 2010 added ribbon customization, to put things exactly as you want them.

Making the Ribbon Mine - Microsoft Office 2010 Engineering - Site Home - TechNet Blogs

I know.. I know.. you still hate it, despite the fact that all your arguments have already been addressed

You could float toolbars and even dock them in other locations.
The Ribbon is larger (unless the toolbar is set to large icons) and shows less options.

Even after upscaling the Office 2003 pictures (to match my larger screen) the Office 2007 Ribbon is larger.

​

Your link about customising the Ribbon doesn't apply to 2007.

Thanks for the link though.
It will probably be useful if I upgrade to a newer version of Office.

 

[Max Peck]

The ribbon is EXACTLY the same size the previous versions of Office with two rows of buttons (the default layout). It's not "huge". Further, the ribbon collapses with a keypress, or can be set to auto-hide and only come up when you click on the tab. You can't auto-hide toolbars in office 2003. Office 2007 also had a qucklaunch bar that was quite customizable, and Office 2010 added ribbon customization, to put things exactly as you want them.

Making the Ribbon Mine - Microsoft Office 2010 Engineering - Site Home - TechNet Blogs

I know.. I know.. you still hate it, despite the fact that all your arguments have already been addressed

Same size, eh? OK, let's compare. The first one is my Word 2003 window, the second, 2010 (from my office machine). The screen resolution is about the same on the two machines. Even a cursory look shows you that the 2010 "Ribbon takes up a lot more screen height as the two rows of buttons. So much for your argument there.



Your point about being able to collapse the Ribbon bar is well taken, though - but I don't WANT to have to collapse it. I like the toolbar exactly the way it is.

I don't mean to get into a long argument here, Mystere. It's strictly personal preference. However the main reason is that Office 2010 doesn't offer any features that I've yet found indispensable for my own use. If it had something I patently needed I might spend the money on it but it doesn't.

Maybe "hate" is too strong a word. I use both of them OK but I routinely find that when in 2010 I have to hunt for things that I can make available in the toolbar on 2003. I suppose if I worked harder at it I could customize it to where I would like it better but, as I mentioned earlier, why spend bucks on an upgrade when what I have works perfectly well? Like any of my tools I'm more focused on using it to get a job done than I am on constantly buying a new tool.

Same thing with Win8. I didn't find it "horrible", quite the opposite: it worked pretty fine (when it wasn't crashing that is). However it simply didn't add any functionality that I found that I needed or wanted. I'm glad I only spent the $14.99 on it. Maybe some other time if I develop a need for something it or Office 2010 has that I need. I suspect it will be awhile.

-Max

 

[Mystere]

Sorry, I was mis-remembering the comparison image I saw back when they introduced the ribbon. It was actually 3 rows, not 2. However, Lots of people have 3 rows of buttons, especially on a smaller screen.

Well, there are plenty of new features in Office 2010 and 2013, many of which *I* can't do without. The conversation filter in Outlook is one of them. I also use the sparklines feature in excel a lot. But the single biggest feature I use a lot is the built-in screen capture feature of Word 2010, which allows me to do screen captures of applications for documentation purposes very quickly. It's a huge time saver, it also allows you to crop those images to a shape, which is really nice.

A lot of what's in the more recent versions of office are "nice" features, not necessarily "must have". Like the ability to minimize Outlook to the notification bar (so it is out of the way).

 

[pparks1]

Conversation view is a very interesting feature. I love the concept, but hate it in reality. It is a feature I have tried many times over, but just find that I miss emails when I use it. So, it's usually turned off on my machine. I use 2010 at work. Took me awhile to adjust to the ribbon, but find it ok. I would be just fine with a menu like before too.

 

[Max Peck]

Sorry, I was mis-remembering the comparison image I saw back when they introduced the ribbon. It was actually 3 rows, not 2. However, Lots of people have 3 rows of buttons, especially on a smaller screen.

Not a problem. I have memory issues at times myself at my age!

Well, there are plenty of new features in Office 2010 and 2013, many of which *I* can't do without. The conversation filter in Outlook is one of them. I also use the sparklines feature in excel a lot. But the single biggest feature I use a lot is the built-in screen capture feature of Word 2010, which allows me to do screen captures of applications for documentation purposes very quickly. It's a huge time saver, it also allows you to crop those images to a shape, which is really nice.

Dunno about the conversions filter (I don't use one) but I can read/write Office 2010 documents from 2003 with an installed converter that MS provides free. Screen cap? I do that system-wide (not just in Office) with SnagIt 9. Can cut, shape, annotate, highlight, you name it. (That's what I used to pull those screen captures I put up a few posts back). The thing cost me, maybe, $30 a few years back. So, again, no features I don't already have. I got Office 2003 Professional for $35 back a few years and SnagIt for $30. Let's see, $65. What does Office 2010 cost again?

A lot of what's in the more recent versions of office are "nice" features, not necessarily "must have". Like the ability to minimize Outlook to the notification bar (so it is out of the way).

Where you been, pal? That feature has been available since at-least Office 2003 if not earlier. (I think it was in Office XP). My Outlook sits in the system tray when minimized just as you describe (not in the task bar).

As you said ... all the issues have been addressed.

-Max

 

[Mystere]

Dunno about the conversions filter (I don't use one) but I can read/write Office 2010 documents from 2003 with an installed converter that MS provides free. Screen cap? I do that system-wide (not just in Office) with SnagIt 9. Can cut, shape, annotate, highlight, you name it. (That's what I used to pull those screen captures I put up a few posts back). The thing cost me, maybe, $30 a few years back. So, again, no features I don't already have. I got Office 2003 Professional for $35 back a few years and SnagIt for $30. Let's see, $65. What does Office 2010 cost again?

Apparently you have eye sight problems as well. CONVERSATION, not CONVERSION. It has nothing to do with document formats.

Yes, there are screen capture tools (I own SnagIt myself, though I use it primarily for capturing multipage web pages), but it's a number of extra steps to do all that. Doing it in Word, when you're using Word to write the documentation is significantly faster because you're taking out all those steps.

And I was using the minimize as an example you might understand, I know it was introduced in earlier versions.

 

[Max Peck]

Dunno about the conversions filter (I don't use one) but I can read/write Office 2010 documents from 2003 with an installed converter that MS provides free. Screen cap? I do that system-wide (not just in Office) with SnagIt 9. Can cut, shape, annotate, highlight, you name it. (That's what I used to pull those screen captures I put up a few posts back). The thing cost me, maybe, $30 a few years back. So, again, no features I don't already have. I got Office 2003 Professional for $35 back a few years and SnagIt for $30. Let's see, $65. What does Office 2010 cost again?

Apparently you have eye sight problems as well. CONVERSATION, not CONVERSION. It has nothing to do with document formats.

Yes, there are screen capture tools (I own SnagIt myself, though I use it primarily for capturing multipage web pages), but it's a number of extra steps to do all that. Doing it in Word, when you're using Word to write the documentation is significantly faster because you're taking out all those steps.

And I was using the minimize as an example you might understand, I know it was introduced in earlier versions.

LOL ... yer right, I did read "conversion"!

What's hard about SHIFT-PrintScr and dragging a lasso around the section you want captured? That's just one mode, you can screen snap the current window or the whole screen with other key combinations.

We're picking at nits now. Let's toss this one in file 86. Later man.

-Max

 

[Wynona]

We're picking at nits now. Let's toss this one in file 86. Later man.

-Max

Actually, I've rather enjoyed the conversation, Max. And, yes, I'm inclined to agree that Office 2003 was better at the time.

However, since I use both Word and Excel in Office 2010, I just gotta jump in here . . .

I have a very neat little program called "Professor Teaches" Windows 7 and Office 2010. I also have it for Office 2003. The only drawback to the program is that it's not in a "searchable" format. It's a video-type program that teaches one all the things Word and/or Excel can do. Of course, it addresses the other programs in Office too.

At any rate, I have "unwillingly" adjusted to the ribbon (it is not intuitive) and can get my work done; however, I was in for a number of pleasant "do what!? Word can do that!? or I can do that in Excel!?.

I am amazed at how much I'm learning, although the Professor skips some of my most used shortcuts (learned through trial and error). No matter what the program, there's nothing like a manual of some type for learning it. That's where my shortcoming comes in . . . I tend to jump in without instruction; thus, waste more time than I would have spent reading or watching a video.