[waldojim]

EggeDelfDE, on 04 November 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

No change = no new products = no sales = economy down = people unemployed. --- Change for the change or change for the better? I have the impression we are facing the first option and that the producers only pretend it's for the better. What will be better once we reach the next year or two???

I guess that depends on your view. This change brought about the first unified operating system. For once, Windows can claim to do what Linux has been trying to do - give a consistent user experience across a broad range of devices. From Arm core phones to high end workstations - Windows 8 is at the heart. The same kernel recompiled for each platform, with the same interface optimized for each platform.

[awaywithpixie]

Quote

I would be happy if they just brought back the classic menu interface. The ribbon layout is nonsensical.

Microsoft got rid of the menu because it was no longer working. 78% of all suggestions for new features for Office were features the programs could already do. When the menus were created in the 80's, they worked, but with only 30-50 commands. Yes, it was hard at first, but we all got over it and moved on to the ribbon. Maybe it's time you did too. The keyboard shortcuts haven't changed since the 80's, so perhaps you should learn them so the next changes won't be so worrysome.

[paulej]

Quote

Aside from PDF editing, that I could do for free elsewhere (LibreOffice)...

Oh, why even mention LibreOffice. You know and I know that the software is crap. It is free, but it is nonetheless crap. Document compatibility simply is not there, and that is one of the main reasons the world standardized on one office suite.

Quote

Are there features that speed up document preparation, or prevent user errors or work faster?

I would argue that Office is pretty good there already. Office cannot type for you, though.

Quote

Changing the graphical interface is not awesome. It is a new interface to replace the tarnished ribbon.

Personally, I like the ribbon in the current office products. I've not tried 2013, but the ribbon is good. It's definitely not tarnished. It does require one to get used to where the commands have moved, but the ribbon interface is much nicer, as it's more visual. Plus, with one click you can get the ribbon out of the way.

Quote

It would be awesome if using the 2013 software reduced the number of mouse-clicks needed to do some formatting. It would be awesome if the 2013 version reduced the possibility of getting carpal tunnel problems in the wrists and forefinger muscles. It would be awesome if the top menu disappeared, and is presented on the left or right side. With new technologies, we have good viewing for width, but not sufficient viewing for height. Letters and documents are still size A or North American 8.5 by 11.

Microsoft cannot fix some of those issues. If your job calls for typing a document, then you have to type a document. You could use a text-to-speech product, but I've not seen one yet that produced great results. And Office cannot read your mind, yet. So, you'll just need to figure out how to not hurt yourself typing.

I fully appreciate the issue you have with these new wide-screen displays. However, the problem isn't Office. The problem is the wide-screen displays. I wish the industry would stop shrinking the number of horizontal lines on the screen. My old laptop used to have 1050 lines on the screen. My new one has 900. That 150 lines was valuable! My desktop machine has 1200 and I would have nothing less.

But, if the industry insists on continuing to make wide screens with so few lines on the screen.... then, yes, it would be good if software would adapt accordingly. I've tried doing that sort of thing with the Start menu, but I really didn't like it. I'm not sure I'd like the ribbon there, either. Things in the ribbon include things that naturally look better horizontal. We really need to have more horizontal lines on the screen.

[paulej]

Quote

That already does exist. It's called Linux. Hah.. Linux zealots. I used to trash MS and forward Linux and BSD. But after years of supporting Linux and Windows servers, it became clear that MS servers are a better all-around product for a variety of reasons. One of them is the lack of clear direction and the model of open source software. Here's how it goes: ...

I think the right answer is always to "pick the right tool for the job". I like Windows on my desktop. I personally would not recommend Windows in the server room, though. I can have a Linux box running for a year or more without having to touch it. I've never had such luck with a Windows machine.

There are definitely some nice things about Windows, including the fact that less-skilled IT staff can "manage" the box. It does make configuring the device easier sometimes.

As for server applications to run the business, pick what works and serves the needs. Even if you go with a commercial product, there is no guarantee it will be around next year. There are some vendors who you can probably rely on, but certainly not all of them. I could tell the story as you have it where I go with a commercial product, then they go broke, and then we're scrambling to find an alternative and porting data is a real problem. And that has happened. What's worse, with some commercial products, getting at the raw data can be a challenge, because it is stored in some proprietary format. At least with open source, you can see exactly how data is stored.

Of course, if an SQL database is used to store the data, it's less of an issue. Still, one has to figure out how data in one table relates to another.

Just hire a good data migration expert. :-)

[JimH443]

paulej, on 20 November 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

But, if the industry insists on continuing to make wide screens with so few lines on the screen.... then, yes, it would be good if software would adapt accordingly. I've tried doing that sort of thing with the Start menu, but I really didn't like it. I'm not sure I'd like the ribbon there, either. Things in the ribbon include things that naturally look better horizontal. We really need to have more horizontal lines on the screen.

The problem isn't that the screen is too wide. They do make wide screens with 1200 pixels (and more) vertically. When enough people buy this size to the exclusion of anything smaller, it will become the default size. This is the way it's always been. I can remember when 800x600 was considered large. Now, these monitors are boat anchors.

[JimH443]

paulej, on 20 November 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

I fully appreciate the issue you have with these new wide-screen displays. However, the problem isn't Office. The problem is the wide-screen displays. I wish the industry would stop shrinking the number of horizontal lines on the screen. My old laptop used to have 1050 lines on the screen. My new one has 900. That 150 lines was valuable! My desktop machine has 1200 and I would have nothing less.

If you're satisfied with 1080 lines... Newegg is having a sale on Samsung 1920 x 1080 monitors until Nov 26 for only $119 (+S&H)

[brainout]

JimH443, on 20 November 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

paulej, on 20 November 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

I fully appreciate the issue you have with these new wide-screen displays. However, the problem isn't Office. The problem is the wide-screen displays. I wish the industry would stop shrinking the number of horizontal lines on the screen. My old laptop used to have 1050 lines on the screen. My new one has 900. That 150 lines was valuable! My desktop machine has 1200 and I would have nothing less.

If you're satisfied with 1080 lines... Newegg is having a sale on Samsung 1920 x 1080 monitors until Nov 26 for only $119 (+S&H)

Although you prefer 1200 lines but as Jim posted above, the Samsung might be for you, also bear in mind the aspect ratio. Because, a 16:9 ratio will be better for viewing Word documents. That translates into a 27" monitor.

However, it also depends on what version of Word you use. Word 2000 is the best version for this, as you can clone it, and view in higher magnification, side-by-side. You can get Word 2000 at Amazon for less than $50 within MS Office XP. (I just bought these again, that's how I know.) So with Word 2000, you can view side-by-side on a smaller monitor, without loss.

To be honest, you can get a similar result in Word 2002+, but each doc shows within the program, so you have to size its windows. These do still size better within a monitor of 16:9 aspect ratio. I just experimented with that display, now.

So: I just installed my Widescreen Dell monitor 20" which is 1600 x 900 in resolution. I bought two of them so I could make onscreen instructional videos in 16:9 resolution, so wouldn't have to futz so much in video editing. (Most Video editors only allow you to use 16:9 or 4:3 resolution.) I paid for them at dellauction.com, which right now is GLUTTED with these monitors. I paid $62 for one of them, and 47 for the other. They ship from Dell with cables (not the USB, but they have their own USB hubs). It's like new. Refurbished, I guess. They have larger monitors there, too. But you need Widescreen, to get that 16:9 resolution.

BE SURE TO GET A MONITOR WITH A USB HUB. When you hook up a large external drive to your computer, it might be glitchy, as USB ports on the computer, have power allocated among them. But the monitor's USB is powered from the monitor power cable, so draws more juice, and thus the external drive behaves better. This is especially true with WD Passport drives. Complaints against them, are resolved by hooking up the drive to a monitor hub. The Dell Widescreen 2010Ht, and 1905, 1907, 1908, and similar models (the first two digits are screen diagonal size), have these.

With the Widescreen at 20" or more, I can view Word side by side in a text size that rivals or exceeds, printed size. I can find no other word processing program which works as well as Print Preview or Word's own Two Page view. Click here for a sample of what it looks like.

This post has been edited by brainout: 21 November 2012 - 08:31 AM

[LiveBrianD]

brainout, on 21 November 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

JimH443, on 20 November 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

paulej, on 20 November 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

I fully appreciate the issue you have with these new wide-screen displays. However, the problem isn't Office. The problem is the wide-screen displays. I wish the industry would stop shrinking the number of horizontal lines on the screen. My old laptop used to have 1050 lines on the screen. My new one has 900. That 150 lines was valuable! My desktop machine has 1200 and I would have nothing less.

If you're satisfied with 1080 lines... Newegg is having a sale on Samsung 1920 x 1080 monitors until Nov 26 for only $119 (+S&H)

Although you prefer 1200 lines but as Jim posted above, the Samsung might be for you, also bear in mind the aspect ratio. Because, a 16:9 ratio will be better for viewing Word documents. That translates into a 27" monitor.

However, it also depends on what version of Word you use. Word 2000 is the best version for this, as you can clone it, and view in higher magnification, side-by-side. You can get Word 2000 at Amazon for less than $50 within MS Office XP. (I just bought these again, that's how I know.) So with Word 2000, you can view side-by-side on a smaller monitor, without loss.

To be honest, you can get a similar result in Word 2002+, but each doc shows within the program, so you have to size its windows. These do still size better within a monitor of 16:9 aspect ratio. I just experimented with that display, now.

So: I just installed my Widescreen Dell monitor 20" which is 1600 x 900 in resolution. I bought two of them so I could make onscreen instructional videos in 16:9 resolution, so wouldn't have to futz so much in video editing. (Most Video editors only allow you to use 16:9 or 4:3 resolution.) I paid for them at dellauction.com, which right now is GLUTTED with these monitors. I paid $62 for one of them, and 47 for the other. They ship from Dell with cables (not the USB, but they have their own USB hubs). It's like new. Refurbished, I guess. They have larger monitors there, too. But you need Widescreen, to get that 16:9 resolution.

BE SURE TO GET A MONITOR WITH A USB HUB. When you hook up a large external drive to your computer, it might be glitchy, as USB ports on the computer, have power allocated among them. But the monitor's USB is powered from the monitor power cable, so draws more juice, and thus the external drive behaves better. This is especially true with WD Passport drives. Complaints against them, are resolved by hooking up the drive to a monitor hub. The Dell Widescreen 2010Ht, and 1905, 1907, 1908, and similar models (the first two digits are screen diagonal size), have these.

With the Widescreen at 20" or more, I can view Word side by side in a text size that rivals or exceeds, printed size. I can find no other word processing program which works as well as Print Preview or Word's own Two Page view. Click here for a sample of what it looks like.

Actually, I would gladly take a 1920x1200 monitor over a 1920x1080 one, as I find 16:10 works a little better, and in that case, you gain a few vertical pixels while loosing none on the horizontal.

[brainout]

LiveBrianD, on 21 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

brainout, on 21 November 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

JimH443, on 20 November 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

paulej, on 20 November 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

I fully appreciate the issue you have with these new wide-screen displays. However, the problem isn't Office. The problem is the wide-screen displays. I wish the industry would stop shrinking the number of horizontal lines on the screen. My old laptop used to have 1050 lines on the screen. My new one has 900. That 150 lines was valuable! My desktop machine has 1200 and I would have nothing less.

If you're satisfied with 1080 lines... Newegg is having a sale on Samsung 1920 x 1080 monitors until Nov 26 for only $119 (+S&H)

Although you prefer 1200 lines but as Jim posted above, the Samsung might be for you, also bear in mind the aspect ratio. Because, a 16:9 ratio will be better for viewing Word documents. That translates into a 27" monitor.

However, it also depends on what version of Word you use. Word 2000 is the best version for this, as you can clone it, and view in higher magnification, side-by-side. You can get Word 2000 at Amazon for less than $50 within MS Office XP. (I just bought these again, that's how I know.) So with Word 2000, you can view side-by-side on a smaller monitor, without loss.

To be honest, you can get a similar result in Word 2002+, but each doc shows within the program, so you have to size its windows. These do still size better within a monitor of 16:9 aspect ratio. I just experimented with that display, now.

So: I just installed my Widescreen Dell monitor 20" which is 1600 x 900 in resolution. I bought two of them so I could make onscreen instructional videos in 16:9 resolution, so wouldn't have to futz so much in video editing. (Most Video editors only allow you to use 16:9 or 4:3 resolution.) I paid for them at dellauction.com, which right now is GLUTTED with these monitors. I paid $62 for one of them, and 47 for the other. They ship from Dell with cables (not the USB, but they have their own USB hubs). It's like new. Refurbished, I guess. They have larger monitors there, too. But you need Widescreen, to get that 16:9 resolution.

BE SURE TO GET A MONITOR WITH A USB HUB. When you hook up a large external drive to your computer, it might be glitchy, as USB ports on the computer, have power allocated among them. But the monitor's USB is powered from the monitor power cable, so draws more juice, and thus the external drive behaves better. This is especially true with WD Passport drives. Complaints against them, are resolved by hooking up the drive to a monitor hub. The Dell Widescreen 2010Ht, and 1905, 1907, 1908, and similar models (the first two digits are screen diagonal size), have these.

With the Widescreen at 20" or more, I can view Word side by side in a text size that rivals or exceeds, printed size. I can find no other word processing program which works as well as Print Preview or Word's own Two Page view. Click here for a sample of what it looks like.

Actually, I would gladly take a 1920x1200 monitor over a 1920x1080 one, as I find 16:10 works a little better, and in that case, you gain a few vertical pixels while loosing none on the horizontal.

Good point, Brian. I hadn't thought of that. I won't buy a monitor bigger than what this old lady can comfortably lift, as I change from computing standing, to sitting.

[LiveBrianD]

brainout, on 21 November 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 21 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Actually, I would gladly take a 1920x1200 monitor over a 1920x1080 one, as I find 16:10 works a little better, and in that case, you gain a few vertical pixels while loosing none on the horizontal.

Good point, Brian. I hadn't thought of that. I won't buy a monitor bigger than what this old lady can comfortably lift, as I change from computing standing, to sitting.

They're not heavy (especially the newer LED-backlit ones) - my 23" 16:9 LED-backlit one is significantly lighter than the 19" 5:4 CCFL one I have. (due to the different aspect ratio, the difference in size isn't as big as you would think)

[brainout]

LiveBrianD, on 21 November 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

brainout, on 21 November 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 21 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Actually, I would gladly take a 1920x1200 monitor over a 1920x1080 one, as I find 16:10 works a little better, and in that case, you gain a few vertical pixels while loosing none on the horizontal.

Good point, Brian. I hadn't thought of that. I won't buy a monitor bigger than what this old lady can comfortably lift, as I change from computing standing, to sitting.

They're not heavy (especially the newer LED-backlit ones) - my 23" 16:9 LED-backlit one is significantly lighter than the 19" 5:4 CCFL one I have. (due to the different aspect ratio, the difference in size isn't as big as you would think)

Thanks for the info. When the arm heals maybe I'll get a bigger one. Have to wait at least six months.

[okayfine]

"The idea is that the new look will help you focus on your work rather than being distracted by the objects decorating your screen. Whether the redesign will achieve this goal or not—time will tell one way or the other—I certainly like the crisper look."

Yeah, no, sadly, this is not the way to determine whether the interface is "good" or not. The old version of "gradients and shadings" had a purpose: it separated the various functional components of the interface, and provided a way to delineate those functions at a glance. This new "flat" look in essence merges everything together. The best way to explain this is to think of a page of text. If all you have is a page of text, that's old school "typewriter" approach to presenting information. The appropriate way to present material is to ensure that the functional ideas are clearly delineated, so that it's not one large amalgam of information that the user then has to sort through. This new "minimalist" look is horrendous from that perspective. It really is reminiscent of the IBM Selectric II way of presenting information. Take Outlook, for example: The emails are all presented in a bland, non-descript way with the same font size and look as the functional items in the menu. As a result, the eye/brain has to work harder to figure out to delineate what is functional design and what is email. It's MUCH harder to see the different email bands now.

Complete fail.

[brainout]

okayfine, on 20 December 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

"The idea is that the new look will help you focus on your work rather than being distracted by the objects decorating your screen. Whether the redesign will achieve this goal or not—time will tell one way or the other—I certainly like the crisper look."

Yeah, no, sadly, this is not the way to determine whether the interface is "good" or not. The old version of "gradients and shadings" had a purpose: it separated the various functional components of the interface, and provided a way to delineate those functions at a glance. This new "flat" look in essence merges everything together. The best way to explain this is to think of a page of text. If all you have is a page of text, that's old school "typewriter" approach to presenting information. The appropriate way to present material is to ensure that the functional ideas are clearly delineated, so that it's not one large amalgam of information that the user then has to sort through. This new "minimalist" look is horrendous from that perspective. It really is reminiscent of the IBM Selectric II way of presenting information. Take Outlook, for example: The emails are all presented in a bland, non-descript way with the same font size and look as the functional items in the menu. As a result, the eye/brain has to work harder to figure out to delineate what is functional design and what is email. It's MUCH harder to see the different email bands now.

Complete fail.

You say that so well! Same problem pervades Google's later designs, no differentiation of the space, fonts, etc., in the name of 'clean'. Yeah, a blank sheet of paper is clean, and you blank out when you look at it. I'm beginning to hate surfing on the web, to the extent the websites ape MS or Google 'blank' designs.