MS to limit where Office 11 can go
OK, I can see limiting backward compatibility, however it's a bit odd that this would *only* work on Win2K SP3 and WinXP as those are the ones using the spiffy new EULA permitting more information about a system to be captured by MS.
OK, I can see limiting backward compatibility, however it's a bit odd that this would *only* work on Win2K SP3 and WinXP as those are the ones using the spiffy new EULA permitting more information about a system to be captured by MS.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-963777.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed
The anticipated time is somewhere around next summer, which is fine as I will be completely on Linux (Debian/Red Hat) by then. However, for those of you out there that might have *questionable* licensing practices anyway, I would suggest that you move to OpenOffice.org and then gradually move into Linux that way, so you will at least have a familiar platform to start with, and then a familiar office app when you go to Linux.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-963777.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed
The anticipated time is somewhere around next summer, which is fine as I will be completely on Linux (Debian/Red Hat) by then. However, for those of you out there that might have *questionable* licensing practices anyway, I would suggest that you move to OpenOffice.org and then gradually move into Linux that way, so you will at least have a familiar platform to start with, and then a familiar office app when you go to Linux.
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Why go to the extreme lengths of changing your OS to Linux? Why not just use an older version of Office?
We still use Office97 in our company, with a few machines having Access 2000 for compatibility with others that they swap databases with.
There is no real benefit to us to move to Office 2000, XP, or 11 when it comes out.
I was reading that the Office XP take up was fairly small due to there being almost no 'must-have' features in it. Is Office 11 really likely to be any different?
Just resist the urge to go and buy (or acquire) the latest software, and you shouldn't have any problems.
We still use Office97 in our company, with a few machines having Access 2000 for compatibility with others that they swap databases with.
There is no real benefit to us to move to Office 2000, XP, or 11 when it comes out.
I was reading that the Office XP take up was fairly small due to there being almost no 'must-have' features in it. Is Office 11 really likely to be any different?
Just resist the urge to go and buy (or acquire) the latest software, and you shouldn't have any problems.
I wasn't surprised by this, I'd seen it coming for ages. It's all part of Microsofts Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Guidelines. Everything that Microsoft provide for Windows whether it be Office, IE and even DirectX will eventually refuse to install on 9x. I can't say it worries me, I haven't seriously used a 9x OS in nearly 2 years and haven't even had one installed for about 1 of those.
Quote:2000 to XP is a big nono if you actually want to do anything. Just like from Windows 2000 to XP, Office XP LOVES to kill you with "help".
Bullshit. On both counts.
Quote:2000 to XP is a big nono if you actually want to do anything. Just like from Windows 2000 to XP, Office XP LOVES to kill you with "help".
Bullshit. On both counts.
Actually, I really like Office XP, but I am just tired of the licensing. Since I am moving toward Linux anyway this is just another push to keep going. I figured that they were going to can support for NT4 and 9x, but I have yet to understand why the new Office would *need* Win2K's SP3 rather than just be compliant with the RTM on up. Also, the upgrade from 97 to 2000 was a huge benefit, especially with Outlook (v97 sucked, while v98 was a huge jump and 2000 merely extended upon it).
I find the need for SP3 to be quite odd too but then, Office 11 might use stuff thats only present in SP3 (although I don't see this being likely) and to keep the support calls for it to a minimum, making it a requirement. Or MS want to be absolutely sure you're running the absolute, cutting edge (and most likely last) version of Windows 2000, again to keep the support calls to a minimum.
MS is quite tactful. There are some folks out there who refuse to move past Windows 98. Like my friend, but then again his system is fast and stable, why mess with it?
Like I care what Office 11 has to offer, I have used Office 97, 2000, and XP. For ordinary uses there is no need to upgrade.
Like I care what Office 11 has to offer, I have used Office 97, 2000, and XP. For ordinary uses there is no need to upgrade.
Funny thing is, this doesn't just apply to Office. It'll eventually spread to stuff like IE and eventually DirectX. The latter is going to be a clincher for a lot of people since not many gamers can live without the latest version of DirectX for very long and when games start being released that require a version of DirectX that refuses to install on anything less than 2000/XP they're going to have little choice but to upgrade.
9x is a mess that MS have waited far too long to clean up and I don't often say this but I admire the fact that they're cleaning it up now, even if it is 5-6 years late and only for their own greedy benefit.
9x is a mess that MS have waited far too long to clean up and I don't often say this but I admire the fact that they're cleaning it up now, even if it is 5-6 years late and only for their own greedy benefit.
Depends on the disto and what you want to do. You can do a loop mount with Debian and your install can stay in sync with the latest stable release if you want, and MS has just recently caught on to that idea with their automated updates utility. Bear in mind that there are still many 2.2.x and older kernels running out there and a lot of applications (even newer ones) work just fine with them.
The linux community is too fragmented to be of any use in the enterprise situation.
What ultimately happens, the initial deployent can only be administored by those who deployed it, because the variety of distros and no standard among them, leaving an IT nightmare for those who may be admins after the fact.
What ultimately happens, the initial deployent can only be administored by those who deployed it, because the variety of distros and no standard among them, leaving an IT nightmare for those who may be admins after the fact.
Quote:The linux community is too fragmented to be of any use in the enterprise situation.
What ultimately happens, the initial deployent can only be administored by those who deployed it, because the variety of distros and no standard among them, leaving an IT nightmare for those who may be admins after the fact.
Well, I can see your angle to a certain extent, but unfortunately the perception is mostly driven by people that haven't used *nix OSs that much (myself included at one time). However, many mainstream and server applications will install properly on all of the Linux OSs using the same source tarballs. In addition, these systems can all be managed the same way using the same tools most of the time. The major differences lie in the window managers, shells, and utilities. And yes, the huge number of combinations that can be made of these choices could be daunting to manage after they have been setup, but a properly setup LAN should be documented to begin with and standardized to some degree. I have walked into many networks where there was a mass of confusion just using MS OSs with varying patch/SP levels and no idea what to do next. And this doesn't include the applications that were installed either. If you were to give a good, recent distribution and honest shot, you might be surprised at what you see. However, as I have said before, my reasons for going to Linux have mostly been with MS licensing practices and getting ready to go to school where the CS department uses only Linux (because of MS licensing costs and restrictions).
What ultimately happens, the initial deployent can only be administored by those who deployed it, because the variety of distros and no standard among them, leaving an IT nightmare for those who may be admins after the fact.
Well, I can see your angle to a certain extent, but unfortunately the perception is mostly driven by people that haven't used *nix OSs that much (myself included at one time). However, many mainstream and server applications will install properly on all of the Linux OSs using the same source tarballs. In addition, these systems can all be managed the same way using the same tools most of the time. The major differences lie in the window managers, shells, and utilities. And yes, the huge number of combinations that can be made of these choices could be daunting to manage after they have been setup, but a properly setup LAN should be documented to begin with and standardized to some degree. I have walked into many networks where there was a mass of confusion just using MS OSs with varying patch/SP levels and no idea what to do next. And this doesn't include the applications that were installed either. If you were to give a good, recent distribution and honest shot, you might be surprised at what you see. However, as I have said before, my reasons for going to Linux have mostly been with MS licensing practices and getting ready to go to school where the CS department uses only Linux (because of MS licensing costs and restrictions).
Quote:Funny thing is, this doesn't just apply to Office. It'll eventually spread to stuff like IE and eventually DirectX. The latter is going to be a clincher for a lot of people since not many gamers can live without the latest version of DirectX for very long and when games start being released that require a version of DirectX that refuses to install on anything less than 2000/XP they're going to have little choice but to upgrade.
This has already happened. I am 100% confident that DirectX 9.0 will be the last version of DirectX to work on Windows 98/98SE/ME. Microsoft doesn't even accept WHQL testing for drivers on Windows 98 and NT4.0 anymore, so ATI won't release official Radeon drivers for 98 users anymore. Although they do say that the ME drivers are perfectly functional, they remain unsupported. DirectX 8.0 was last for Windows 95. IE 7.0 or whatever bullshit, MSN Explorer version it becomes, won't work at all for the 9x OSes or NT 4.0, I am positive on this. Windows Media Player 8 doesn't even install on Windows 95 or NT4.0. It's just the way MS forces people to move up in the OS pecking order. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it is bad.
This has already happened. I am 100% confident that DirectX 9.0 will be the last version of DirectX to work on Windows 98/98SE/ME. Microsoft doesn't even accept WHQL testing for drivers on Windows 98 and NT4.0 anymore, so ATI won't release official Radeon drivers for 98 users anymore. Although they do say that the ME drivers are perfectly functional, they remain unsupported. DirectX 8.0 was last for Windows 95. IE 7.0 or whatever bullshit, MSN Explorer version it becomes, won't work at all for the 9x OSes or NT 4.0, I am positive on this. Windows Media Player 8 doesn't even install on Windows 95 or NT4.0. It's just the way MS forces people to move up in the OS pecking order. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it is bad.
In the case of Office I happen to agree with them. I am happy they are forcing Win98 out.
As for Linux, compared to Windows, For the most part They're are only 2 Windows OS's that I have seen in my IT experience. Windows 98 or Windows 2000. Most companies use either or. And to get both those Os's up to specs to the lastest MS patches and such, is a relatively easy task.
Linux however is not quite as easy to maintain, as much as I hate to admit, I am and have been a Linux user for a while now. From the days of running Caldera on P133 used as a router, to the latest distros.
The Distros are too fragemented. You get various packages installed, with too much, IMO, software that doesn't need to be on a User's machine. Not to mention lack of good automation scripts, which make delpoying Windws 2000 so easy.
Linux needs a guy like Bill Gates, Power Hungry Greedy, good old fashioned capitalist, to bring the Ditros under one banner. Then you can have a consistant package install of linux, with various distros adding thier "flava" to it. If the Core OS of Linux was the same among Ditros, this wouldn't be an issue. But Ever time I hear the work Kernel followed by 2.456.o09988 beta 1 I'm happy to be an MS cronie
As for Linux, compared to Windows, For the most part They're are only 2 Windows OS's that I have seen in my IT experience. Windows 98 or Windows 2000. Most companies use either or. And to get both those Os's up to specs to the lastest MS patches and such, is a relatively easy task.
Linux however is not quite as easy to maintain, as much as I hate to admit, I am and have been a Linux user for a while now. From the days of running Caldera on P133 used as a router, to the latest distros.
The Distros are too fragemented. You get various packages installed, with too much, IMO, software that doesn't need to be on a User's machine. Not to mention lack of good automation scripts, which make delpoying Windws 2000 so easy.
Linux needs a guy like Bill Gates, Power Hungry Greedy, good old fashioned capitalist, to bring the Ditros under one banner. Then you can have a consistant package install of linux, with various distros adding thier "flava" to it. If the Core OS of Linux was the same among Ditros, this wouldn't be an issue. But Ever time I hear the work Kernel followed by 2.456.o09988 beta 1 I'm happy to be an MS cronie
Microsoft always mentions SP's in their software installations.
Remeber NT4 SP3? Just look at most NT4 software programs. Most recommend the installation of SP3+.
heh. Mabye they decided 3 was the magic number this time around too but if you look at most software packages they do recommend a certain SP level. It's likely SP3 was recommended in this case due to MSI 2 included in SP3 whereas some strange people don't upgrade their MSI.
Heck, I push out MSI 2 over SMS to all my workstations at work. Hopefully in a month or so I'll trust SP3 enough to push it out.....doubtful.
Remeber NT4 SP3? Just look at most NT4 software programs. Most recommend the installation of SP3+.
heh. Mabye they decided 3 was the magic number this time around too but if you look at most software packages they do recommend a certain SP level. It's likely SP3 was recommended in this case due to MSI 2 included in SP3 whereas some strange people don't upgrade their MSI.
Heck, I push out MSI 2 over SMS to all my workstations at work. Hopefully in a month or so I'll trust SP3 enough to push it out.....doubtful.
Forcing 9x out is one thing, but I find it odd that they would feel it necessary for the cutoff point to be Win2K with SP3 installed, and not just "Windows 2000". That seems pretty odd to me, and I hope that is cleared up in the future.
On the topic of Linux, it is generally considered an "alternative" OS. And by nature, alternatives are choices other than the normal way of doing things. This has it pros and cons, and usually you have a reason for selecting the alternative. For me, it was their licensing and school, for others it is simply the cost, and still others use it because they hate MS/BG and take everything they do personally. If you're happy with Windows, then cool. My first exposure to Windows was back around '92 when I was working at a Radio Shack and we had some machines coming in with Windows (I can vaguely remember the box having a synthesizer on the cover and wondering what the hell that was on there for, and I was told that it was a "multimedia" OS ). Well, I was more used to DOS at the time but only as a casual user, so I never made much of Windows in general. The next time I bumped into it was with Windows 3.1, and I hated it with a passion and refused to run it, so I stuck with DOS again. Then came 95 (and all the designations of A, B/OSR2.1, C), 98, 98SE, NT4, 2K, and now XP. I think that I have just come to a point where change would be good, and I have enough reasons to make the leap into something else. If you stick with MS, great. But if you're ready to move over to Linux, we'll be here.
On the topic of Linux, it is generally considered an "alternative" OS. And by nature, alternatives are choices other than the normal way of doing things. This has it pros and cons, and usually you have a reason for selecting the alternative. For me, it was their licensing and school, for others it is simply the cost, and still others use it because they hate MS/BG and take everything they do personally. If you're happy with Windows, then cool. My first exposure to Windows was back around '92 when I was working at a Radio Shack and we had some machines coming in with Windows (I can vaguely remember the box having a synthesizer on the cover and wondering what the hell that was on there for, and I was told that it was a "multimedia" OS ). Well, I was more used to DOS at the time but only as a casual user, so I never made much of Windows in general. The next time I bumped into it was with Windows 3.1, and I hated it with a passion and refused to run it, so I stuck with DOS again. Then came 95 (and all the designations of A, B/OSR2.1, C), 98, 98SE, NT4, 2K, and now XP. I think that I have just come to a point where change would be good, and I have enough reasons to make the leap into something else. If you stick with MS, great. But if you're ready to move over to Linux, we'll be here.
I missed DF's reply earlier since this was sitting at the reply screen for quite a while .
The reason for MS making note of NT4's SP3 (and many applications doing the same) was because of many *MAJOR* fixes that came with that. Also, wasn't DirectX first introduced with it (DX3)? When you see applications being installed for 9x, it didn't matter what version it was for 95, as I don't recall there ever being a need for an Office 97 upgrade from 95 or whatever requiring Win95B. Although you couldn't actually *get* B/OSR2/2.1/C unless it was OEM anyway, but you could patch it up manually although there were only a few patches that were needed for some things (like DUN). The only mentions that I have ever seen for very specific SP levels were Win98SE (WDM and improved USB support), NT SP3 (as mentioned before), NT SP4 (IE4 and Active Desktop), and NT SP5 (NTFS 5 support). Does anyone recall any major fixes in Win2K SP3? Win2K SP1 fixed a lot of DNS and AD issues, and SP2 did a bit of polishing, but the only thing that stands out with SP3 is the new EULA. Anyone have any other suggestions?
The reason for MS making note of NT4's SP3 (and many applications doing the same) was because of many *MAJOR* fixes that came with that. Also, wasn't DirectX first introduced with it (DX3)? When you see applications being installed for 9x, it didn't matter what version it was for 95, as I don't recall there ever being a need for an Office 97 upgrade from 95 or whatever requiring Win95B. Although you couldn't actually *get* B/OSR2/2.1/C unless it was OEM anyway, but you could patch it up manually although there were only a few patches that were needed for some things (like DUN). The only mentions that I have ever seen for very specific SP levels were Win98SE (WDM and improved USB support), NT SP3 (as mentioned before), NT SP4 (IE4 and Active Desktop), and NT SP5 (NTFS 5 support). Does anyone recall any major fixes in Win2K SP3? Win2K SP1 fixed a lot of DNS and AD issues, and SP2 did a bit of polishing, but the only thing that stands out with SP3 is the new EULA. Anyone have any other suggestions?
Ive tried Linux on many occasions and have yet to find anything that i can do with it, that i cant do in windows.
But, ive found plenty of things i can do in linux that i can also do in windows, except it seems to take twice as long, heh Maybe its just me, but it seems pointless for the VAST majority of home users to use it.
As far as office goes, who cares, as someone already said, use a previous version. Ive got office 2000, and i cant think of any reason to upgrade to even office XP (does it have a new paperclip or something?)
But, ive found plenty of things i can do in linux that i can also do in windows, except it seems to take twice as long, heh Maybe its just me, but it seems pointless for the VAST majority of home users to use it.
As far as office goes, who cares, as someone already said, use a previous version. Ive got office 2000, and i cant think of any reason to upgrade to even office XP (does it have a new paperclip or something?)
Speaking of the paperclip, I saw this video clip a while back. Good for a laugh, but if you're offended by profanity, you probably don't want to watch this.
