I see they sorta reintroduced a menu list of drop-downs like in MS Office 2003 and prior. Pity they took away your ability to COLOR the thing. Instead, "Microsoft’s Office redesign uses white backgrounds pretty much everywhere, and the net effect is less clutter." No, the net effect is more eyestrain. This STUPID idea was introduced in 2007 and hasn't changed since. They made the same stupid mistake in Moviemaker 6.0 (not Live Moviemaker, which is inferior) -- but at least your color choices for the system, affect how Moviemaker displays.
Not so in MS Office. Glare Blue and Glare White cannot be overridden. For what value added, to go with the added eyestrain? None. You can't customize menu options, as you could before, in Office 2003 and prior. You can't get the color scheme to ease your employees' eyestrain, either.
Adding insult to injury, the return to a Menu drop-down is less intuitive than the old MS Office 2003 and prior menus, which were standard across the OS as well. File means something to do with file management, clear; Edit means something to do with editing the file, again clear. View means something to do with onscreen viewing, still clear; Insert again clear; Format, again clear, but then Tools contains some things affecting formatting, but called Tools because it's on a grand scale; Table overlaps with Tools, but is restricted to Tables, and of course Window and Help are clear. I just uploaded a video showing the difference,
here.
This is why the legal, financial, and most every other word-processing-intensive firm remains on Word 2003 and prior. When I download legal documents to tweak for my clients, the download is in rtf or in Word 2003 and prior format. Or, in pdf, which everyone but MS has been able to convert to editable text, since the 1990s (and even before, with Acrobat).
MS Office has become dysfunctional in the extreme. Late to the party. It never fixed the flaws in Word 2003 and prior, which if it had merely done WITHOUT changing the interface, would have garnered more profits for the company. Were I on the Board of Directors, I'd argue for firing all the top management involved in the changes to the interface. For both the OS, and Office. Those are the mainstays of the company, and whoever argued for the massive interface changes to be FORCED on people, is too dumb to live.
See, we MAKE MACROS to run a lot of things, so interface changes are extremely expensive. CNC controllers make machine parts, be it for cars, the restaurant industry, or whatever. They use a Windows OS and depend on the interface being a certain way, to govern what programs are called up at what time to make the parts, effect design changes, etc. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS are wasted if the interface is changed. Same for employees, who are used to a certain interface and now must relearn everything over? Do you know how much that costs?
MICROSOFT IS A DEAF COMPANY. It cares not what costs it imposes on users, especially in business. So after being burned several times after XP, businesses are looking elsewhere, for how to handle the next change. MS has proven untrustworthy. Goodwill has been lost.
So groaning, I'll gradually move to Linux, because there's no one to force me to make desktop changes. But I wish it were commercialized, so I could get the support needed when needed. Support is good in enterprise. But the small business owner is kinda left in the lurch, unless he goes to Ubuntu. Hint hint to you other Linux flavors, you could charge us for support and we'd gladly pay. We don't want to write our own Linux code. We want to do what
we do, to make a living!
This post has been edited by brainout: 04 February 2013 - 03:18 PM
Help
Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:11 AM
