Slashdot Mirror
Codeweavers Releases Crossover Office
rleyton writes "Codeweavers have just announced Crossover Office, a Wine derivitive which allows MS-Office 97 & 2000 products as well as Lotus Notes to run without a Windows OS License. If it's as cool as the Crossover plugin product, then it could mean a significant step forward in Wine's progress." NewsForge got hold of a final beta copy a couple of days ago and has a Crossover Office review up already, and DesktopLinux.com has one too. This looks pretty cool, yes.
Now if a PHB tells you can't run Linux, because you need Office - tell him you'll save money by not needing a Windows license, and call still use Office.
Bias report: I am a registered (bought and paid for) licensee of the Crossover plugin. Love watching Quicktime and even tolerate Windows Media Player. I am pleased to see these folks doggedly banging away at WINE and, concurrently, identifying specific market niches that can help them bring in a few dollars.
I'm not likely to buy this one because I don't need MS Office and $55 will buy some things I do want or need...
however...
Boy, do I hope this works as well as the plugin.
Office is a major stumbling block for many people (not that it should be, just is).
More to the point: If they can run Office well enough to be worth the trouble, how much more software is just around the bend?
The reasons to resist are melting, my pretty, melting, melting...
This might keep linux in the running for a good long time; Office keeps most of the corporate world from using it.
You save around $50 for not having your OEM license on Windows (assuming you don't have the Windows license already if you are supposed to be running Office), pay $55 extra for the Crossover Office thingy and you are somehow saving money?
Yeah - that's gonna fly just great with my boss.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Well this will last until Office integratees with windows. Or they change their license to require that you ONLY run MS Office on MS Windows, to fufil DRM requirements.
I'm using it (well, testing it - you never know, the company might go for it)
I have to say it works really well, even Access seemed to work for me (although CodeWeavers say on their site it doesn't)
It was a bit wierd having access to the company's shared calendar after using Evolution for the year that I've worked here.
I don't think I'll use it full-time, but it will be useful occasionally, and I'm sure other people who have to have M$ Office will find it invaluable.
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
Of course, it's an obvious point that this will really piss off Microsoft, and they may have some legal ground to kick around on. They may be able to say, for example, that such software facilitates piracy and allows people to weasel out of the Windows license requirement in their Office (or whichever) license agreement.
OTOH, maybe the Justice Department might find that requiring a MS Windows installation when it is unecessary on a technological level is some sort of reverse bundling (i.e. forcing users to buy a copy of Windows, even though it is technically possible to use Office without it). Explotation of their (near) monopoly on office suites to sell more copies of Windows!
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
ALL the wine modifications which were introduced with crossover plugin were submitted back to the wine tree
Hetz (Heunique)
It is not likely that any companies who do not want to run Linux on desktop is going to run it cos now Office can be run on Linux. They use Windows to have the support from MS (interesting, but true), that is also the reason they buy DELL and HP but not just any cheaper beige box. They want to be able to have a number to call when Office on Windows has a problem.
Really, a PC's life in the corporate world is perhaps 3 years. $2000 compared to the productivity lost by the employee whose salary is at least 40 times more than the PC in that same 3 year span is just not worth it.
They just don't want to take the chance. It's a pity.
geek page at KY speaks
You mean like IE5.5 SP2 broke Netscape style plugins?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
the parent post is an AC, so it's at "0" but s/he's got an excellet point. Moderators: please mod up!
The Free desktop that Just Works
Here's what I can't figure out: Office 2000 will run on Win95. That means that to make Office 2000 (or damn near any other product out there that runs on the windows tree) all that needs to be done is support an API that is now almost 7 years old.
One of the great claims of the OSS movement is how RAPID OSS programs are developed. Yet WINE, which is one of the larger OSS efforts out there, can not achieve this seemingly meager goal year after year.
Indeed, the only thing that seems to have kept WINE anywhere close to being on-target is the support of private companies who contribute their code back to the WINE tree. Some of these companies,like Codeweavers are decidedly on the OSS bandwagon. But others, like Corel aren't (though they did play nice with OSS, to their credit).
In the meantime, closed source efforts to port similarly complex API's succeed in much less time with far higher quality results (VM Ware anyone!).
Can someone explain how the failure of a project to hit a stationary target (the Win95 API has not changed though implimentation bugs may have) after such a lengthy period of time is anything but a proof by counter example of the grandiose claims of how much better OSS is for just this sort of development?
I really don't think a lot of people will want to run MS-Office on Linux, given the existence of StarOffice and OpenOffice.
This is very cool as a technology demenstration though. If big apps like Office run under Wine, it's a good sign for the little applications. It's no longer basic productivity tools that keep people from switching to Linux, it's the fact that you can't go into a store and pick up a tax program, or a spelling game for your toddler, and be confident it will work.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Not running at the moment. Will run soon I guess (check Codeweavers web site)
Hetz (Heunique)
I think Microsoft is sure to notice this one. We can only guess what their answer will be. A change in Office EULA forbidding use in Operating Systems other than the one the software is for, Windows or MacOS (but they probably can't change this for products already bought)? A cease and desist letter from their lawyers to CodeWeavers, quoting DMCA, EULAs, the Bible, the British Common Law and The Road Ahead? A cry for help to Congress to add a clause outlawing Linux, *BSD and any free OS in existence or to be developed to some law, any law, being currently discussed? Or just a "business as usual" attitude, a new marketing campaign pitching Office to Linux users?
On the other hand, judging by the test (they used RC1, not 1.0), this software still have some way to go before it can be said to be ready. But it is already a huge step forward. Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Explorer running correctly under Linux are a huge incentive for corporations willing to move their desktops to Linux. Once there, moving people to Star/OpenOffice or even the recent gobe will be just a matter of corporate policy and time for the bean counters to add up the license savings of the switch out of Windows and the license savings to be gained by switching out of Office.
While this product is probably useful to the geek Linux lover who also needs to use Office, I fail to see how this is going to make corporate users switch over to Linux. I also fail to see how this is reducing the need for Microsoft software.
Yeah, sure, you're getting rid of the Windows license...a savings of $50 or so in the OEM world. But you're still giving money to Uncle Bill for Office itself...and even in an OEM atmosphere I bet Office is a damned sight more than $50.
Making cute nick-nacks that will run Microsoft's office suite on another OS doesn't reduce Microsoft's grip on the desktop what so ever. Only a native office suite that is not purchased from Microsoft will make that difference on Microsoft's bottom line.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Now if only they can just get Office to integrate with Evolution and Mozilla (or, better yet, Galeon)...
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
Now I've converted a bunch of people to linux over the years, and ran linux as my main desktop for several years. But about a year ago I had to switch to Win2k. Why? Because of Office, or more specifically Outlook. I need full compatability and OWA(web access) does not always cut it. I also need to be able to send and receive word and excel docs EXACTLY as they come to me. There are no native linux products which do this perfectly. There are always formatting issues etc etc. Now with this plugin I have the potential to switch back for what I consider to be a minor cost. Considering my distro is free $50 is not much to pay. So in conclusion I'm very excited and looking forward goes back to linux full time.
BTW one thing to keep in mind is that if they can get Office running other apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Autocad etc can't be far behind. Yes native is better, but native is not coming anytime soon from companies like Adobe. So I say full steam ahead for wine.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
If Office was indeed the last app a business needed to move to Linux (and I think that's fairly common), support via Crossover may well be just what the doctor ordered. However, I don't think it's likely the decision will come down to the price of Crossover.
There are also the other advantages (security, stability) over Windows that Linux offers.
I'd like to see a comparison of stability between, say, "Office 2000 running on Windows 2000" and "Office 2000 running on Crossover on (whatever)". I don't know if it would turn out the way you think (despite Linux being more stable in general).
I don't know how much play Linux advocates are getting out of security issues right now. I think you'll need to see another big (ie. well covered by regular news channels) security breach or two before security really becomes a factor in migration again.
The other consideration is future. Many businesses spend much more than $55/desktop to keep current with the latest version of Office. Is Crossover going to work for the next version? Only MS (well, depending on how courts move) really knows the answer to that.
Who knows, maybe MS will just start selling Office for Linux. Could happen...
.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
I have read the review. It says no such thing.
What is says is that Office under 'ordinary' WINE, ie. not the plug-in, proved more unstable than under Windows.
Cheers,
Ian
No doubt! I really wanted to kick Windows to the curb, but really got attached to Trillian for IM (yeah, Gaim, Gaim, but My friends use Trillian and we use SecureIM to plot our world domination)
I bought Crossover PLugin 1.1.0 and bang - Quicktime, Trillina, RealOne, etc, etc. VERY cool. Best $25 I ever spent on software.
Granted, wine likes to suck up my CPU cycles, but hopefully the success of Crossover xxxx will help improve that.
Keep up the great work guys!
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
...the paperclip, I'm not buying it. ;^)
.doc monopoly" statements here.]
Of course, I'm not buying it anyway. [Insert standard "no reason to further the
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I've been watching the wine lists for a while now, and I believe Notes does NOT work reliably with the current wine releases. You can apply an unofficial patch to make it work, but it's unofficial because it doesn't conform to Wine's programming guidelines (IIRC).
So you can't easily get it for free, but yes, it's possible.
Another example is Installshield. Crossover works wonderfully, but the code is a hack, and won't be accepted as-is into the Wine tree.
By buying Codeweavers products (I have Crossover myself), you're buying the "end result". While sticking with the 'Official' Wine releases gives you the "correct" code (which you may need to hack to get your apps working, then it's no longer 'correct').
CodeWeavers is bringing the reality of Windows apps on Linux, while WineHQ brings structure and discipline to the codebase.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Folks,
it would be really useful if people would post reviews. Some short ones have been posted, but "rocks as hell"... well.
Any power users out there? Are there problems with fonts as told in the review of the beta? Can you create Access databases? Do macros/VBA programs work? Does the menu editor work? Do images in tables print well from word? Spell check? Help? Does the mouse feel right? Clipboard? Can you embed excel tables? Do ODBC connections from Access databases work? ...
Thanks!
You're already better off writing for MFC using Codeweavers than using GTK or something right now. Support for win32 drivers in Linux is less than a year away and then you'll be better off writing win32 drivers than kernel modules. In the end the UNIX model will be used in embedded systems while the windows model will be used in desktop systems, with the only differentiating factor being the kernel.
Most companies don't chase after infringers. They go after the enablers. It's called contributory infringement, and it's what the DMCA is all about.
Kind of like criminal conspiracy to catch mobsters, who never really did anything wrong.
I totally agree on both counts. Steve Ballmer has already stated that every Windows app will eventually be re-written to run in the .NET framework. And I certainly don't trust that .NET will be forever platform independant. In fact they only submitted a small portion to the standards committee. So support for the Win32 api will eventually be a moot point.
And your second point takes the words right out of my mouth as I was reading the article. I think as soon as the monopoly trials are over they will have enough wiggle room to put a requirement into the license for Office that it must run on Windows.
Developers: We can use your help.
You brought up a good point and one I'm sure Microsoft would not want to see in the press.
You mention the $50 an OEM might pay but there is much more. Keeping MS Windows running isn't cheap and being forced to upgrade the OS and MS apps every 1.5 years doesn't help either. Let's not forget those wonderful security features Microsoft has built into MS Windows for you. That's right, you should include the cost for that virus software too. And that only catches the virus after you've been infected since MS Windows gets infected so quickly. I think it was estimated that over $10 billion dollars were lost do to MS Windows virus infections over the last couple of years. Keeping that registry fixed up isn't cheap either.
Keeping a business running on MS Windows is like keeping your car running by giving a crocked neighborhood mechanic your checkbook. You start it up and it's gonna cost ya....
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Codeweavers to release a package that allows us to run the key Adobe and Macromedia apps quickly and perfectly under Linux, and then the circle is complete; there will be absolutely no reason for us (in particular) to ever boot into Windoze again.
It would be more than useful also, for them to quickly address the problem of font control under Linux; this means creating an Adobe Type Manager® clone. Then, we will be able to gleefully work uninterupted for days on end.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
That's all fine and good, except that there's no Windows to be rebooted. Somehwere in the registry or whatever, that program's put an identifier so the next time Windows boots up, it'll run the rest of the installation program, but I don't know where that is. When I try and run the installation program again, it just gives me the same song-and-dance about needing to reboot, so I can never actually get the things installed! This is mostly the case with the "newer" MS products, like the Office 2k line.
What's nice about the Crossover Office thing (aha! this post is on topic) is that they've evidentally got an install procedure that actually WORKS, so that might be the answer I've wanted. Of course, now I'm in a position where I don't need to worry about running those MS programs, so I probably won't get it, but still. :)
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
I installed Office 2000 a couple of years ago. I seem to remember it had something built in where, if you didn't register the product, it would disable itself after 50 uses. I have no idea how they implemented it. I'm assuming that it will still be able to properly register itself even when running under Wine/Crossover? (Or I wonder if running under Crossover somehow disables the time bomb?)
People don't change to Linux because it brings too many changes. You have to adapt everything starting from e-mail, documents and ending at any special apps you may run on Windows.
If this product lets you still use Office and even run all those special apps, a change to Linux becomes a set of small changes. Change the OS first. Then gradually change more during months or years.
The best? Office for Windows suffers most of the problems that I associate with Windows itself. The bloat, the stupid features, the bizarre interfeace, etc.
Office for Mac OS X isn't bad, but I'd prefer to use something else.
The problem is that I can't think of anything else that doesn't suck that's still sold, but I refuse to believe that there isn't such a thing.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
favorite Linux flavor $60
Crossover plugin $55
sticking Windows up Billy Boy's ass PRICELESS!
If you think the Gimp has "all the same capabilities" as Photoshop, you've obviously never been a serious Photoshop user.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Have you looked at Kivio, from theKompany.com? This is not really my kind of thing, so I can't tell you if it will do everything you need or not...
Support native Linux ISV's!
-- Mike Greaves
Most of the messages I've seen so far seem to imply that the cost saving of not needing Windows are not enough to justify the switch for business users. My question is, would it be possible (both technically and license-wise) to install this plugin (plus office) on just one big linux server and having multiple users log-in and use it through X-windows? In this case I suppose that the savings would be greater, and you could also ensure centralized back-ups without any problem. So, would it work?
You know what would be more useful given the gobe office studio review today?
For someone to write a little engine that takes in MS office docs and spits them out in a open file format for any other application to use. (And converts the other way too). That would mean the people could switch from MS Office, the average office drone wouldnt notice the difference between Gobeproductive and msoffice - the real lock in is the file formats because there isnt yet an Open Source application that will 100% read/write them.
no sig.
So how quickly will Microsoft update its licenses requiring that Office only be run on Windows OS or release versions with undocumented 'features' that require files only found on the latest and greatest Windows OS.
Right they won't like this.
But you have to consider the context of the times to know what they'll do
// present codeweavers plugin as evidence
// that no one is "tied" to Windows
// send in BSA auditors to outfits daring
// enough to buy Office without Windows
// and insure next Office has API calls down
// into the deepest bowels of the HAL and .NET
// for good measure
if ( antitrust_trial_active() ) {
}
else {
}
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I'm tempted to post this anonymously to avoid the inevitable Trolls and Flamebaits this will earn me... but I think I'll put my high karma to good use and stand publicly behind my opinion.
Simple fact: The Gimp, like many other Open Source programs, has a poor user interface. Unlike Photoshop, which, despite its massive feature-set, is easy for an average user to pick up, the Gimp's functions are all buried in multiple levels of right-click menus. It also uses an annoying multi-window interface that clutters your taskbar horribly. The simple fact is that Photoshop is just a lot more pleasant and easy to use.
Likewise, MS Office is a much smoother experience than StarOffice (which, admittedly, has improved by leaps and bounds since its thrice-damned 5.0 incarnation).
Now, I'm behind Open Source 100%, but I don't get so caught up in my zealotry that I lose sight of ease of use issues. If an everyday user can't sit down and use an Open Source program just as easily as they could use a proprietary one, then they're not going to want to switch. It's as simple as that.
Some of us simply can't afford to be buying upgrades to our OS every 18 months. I personally like to put those monies into routine hardware upgrades.
If you want the OSS stuff to come around quicker, pick up GCC and start contributing. Help is always welcome. I for one wish I had the time to do that myself. Instead, I try to contribute a little time/money to existing OSS projects when I can. I feel it's a well spent investment.
Also, if KDE seems to crash on you all the time (even though I've never had it crash on me since I actively started using it over a year ago), try Gnome, Sawfish, WM or their variants. At least you are offered the choice.
It only takes minor Linux (or even Linux app) security breaches before the excuse becomes:
"Well, every OS has security problems."
and the whole issue is filed away. It's hard to sell change because change is inconvenient.
"This can help you cover your bum" is a good way to sell to managers, but it only works if public perception is overwhelmingly set in one direction. As long as managers feel MS is sufficiently covering them (or at least appearing to do so), security will be a tough sell as a reason for migration.
As long as you're doing what everyone else is doing, nobody's going to fire you.
.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
This isn't for my boss. This is for me. Perhaps if I really like it, it will be for some other people that I talk to.
The question is, is it even for me? I need to run Office 95, not Office 97. My copy of Office 97 is installed on another machine, so I don't have the right to install it on my Linux box. The copy of 95, however, is currently unused. But they don't say that they can run Office 95, and I'm not likely to scout around to find a copy of Office 97 to buy.
OTOH, this is one step closer to the time when the older windows games can be played. Perhaps Civilization III (I prefer Civilization to any other game, but CTP does become old). I'd say Civilization II, but there were multiple versions of that, and most of them even had trouble running on a native win95 system.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
One is raising windows on clicks. This makes it impossible to have a number of control panels that the user can easily rearrange in the order they want. The only solution is to enforce an ordering by "parent/child" (the only ordering interface provided by Windows or X window managers) which is so annoying that more than one control panel is nearly impossible.
Fortunately some X window managers have avoided the above problem or can be configured to turn it off (but not KDE, alas...). However the second problem (also on Windows) is that when you raise a "child" window the window managers insist on raising all "parent" windows to immediately below them.
The end result is that anybody trying to make a multi-window interface is forced to make every window a main window (thus cluttering the task bar, as you noticed) and trying to tell people that they need to reconfigure their window manager to get best performance.
Let me plead again with the KDE/Gnome (and MicroSoft) designers: NEVER NEVER NEVER raise a window unless the user clicks ON THE TITLE BAR of THAT WINDOW (or one of it's parents). DO NOT RAISE WINDOWS WHEN USERS CLICK BUTTONS, DO NOT RAISE WINDOWS THAT ARE PARENTS OF THE CLICKED WINDOW. And maybe get rid of NeXTstep-like "layers", I can raise the taskbar myself.
PLEASE! You are completely killing any innovations in user interface with this stupid behavior.
Wine itself still need X86 processor - so OS X is out of the question..
FreeBSD - well, it really depends on the amount of people who want it - ask CodeWeavers..
Hetz (Heunique)
This could be a great solution for multiuser systems. Think about this: the cost of a Windows server license, combined with the cost of CAL's, combined with Terminal Server licensing, combined with Citrix licensing (if applicable) is tremendous. If you could run Linux on, say, a quad Xeon, add the Crossover Office extension, and install Microsoft Office ... you now have a multiuser installation of Office that can be shared to multiple users. You can even keep it legal by paying for as many instances of Office as you're running, and you're still saving many thousands of dollars.
Take it from me, I run boxes at a hosting center where some of our customers are ASP's. Terminal Server licensing is an absolute nightmare. Being able to share out Win32 apps without paying OS license fees would be a very big deal.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Sorry if I missed it, but which version of IE were they running? Does it support IE6 or is it an older one?
My other
Matter of preference and familiarity, both self-reinforcing I know.
You say it yourself: people are generally more comfortable with what they're used to. It's fairly safe to say that most Linux users are more familiar with single-window style applications. KDE, Gnome, and Windows GUIs have standardized on this. Documents (pictures or whatever) go inside the main window, which also includes all toolbars and the like. Options should also be reachable from the main application menu bar.
I'll backpedal slightly from my previous argument and admit that The Gimp isn't *unpleasant* to use. It's just not (in my opinion, and others I've spoken with) *as* pleasant as Photoshop. New users, for instance, often have a bit of trouble figuring out how to cut and paste, run filters, or perform any number of other advanced functions.
Of course, I've been deliberately avoiding the price issue. All of my arguments are based on the fundamental assumption that whoever is going to be using this program has several hundred dollars to blow on purchasing it. And The Gimp isn't so complicated that people can't pick it up by spending a little extra time familiarizing themselves with it. I just think they shouldn't *have* to.
Lendrick
So what is the problem? you can install Crossover Office System-wide and every user can simply get his X session, or login, or VNC or whatever you want to...
You still need the number of Office licenses per users..
Hetz (Heunique)
umm, so be in situation like Mandrake and like what used to be Eazel?
heh, I hardly think they'll listen to you..
Hetz (Heunique)
Read my comment above
Hetz (Heunique)
"Crossover plugin" is a bit of a misnomer. It's actually a plugin generator. It generates a .so containing a Netscape plugin that has Wine run the corresponding Windows Netscape plugin. So the code for all of the system calls needed to run the various Windows plugins supported by Crossover has been submitted to the main Wine branch, but the code to generate the Linux plugins from the Windows plugins has not.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
My only problem getting office to run with Wine in the past was that it would not install outside of Windows. Has that been fixed in this release?
This product is not about saving money. It's not for people who hate MS. It's for people who like Unix or a Unix-like environment for their everyday computing but also need to use the de-facto office suite.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Nop,
WABI managed to run Windos 3.11 and I think Windows for workgroup. Problem is - that they never cotinued to work on it to make Windows 9x working. Same as OS/2 windows support (Win32S anyone?)
Hetz (Heunique)
You missed my point...
No one says that with this product you'll save money right now - you're saving money in the long term - think no new windows version will be needed any more.
You're not saving money now on your current machines since you already bought the windows + office licenses. The product fits you if you plan to move those user (all or part of them) to Linux.
As for the price - I suggest you email sales@codeweavers.com - maybe you could come to a reasonable deal...
Hetz (Heunique)
I hope you are reading this.. Could you check if DirectX stuff works in Internet Explorer?
I have a customer that needs to run one site that requires Flash5 and works *ONLY* in Internet Explorer. (Probably because of DirectX) p Thanks a lot!
Funny, that's exactly the reason why I switched over to KDE1 in the bad old days. (Like you I didn't like the way Windows raises windows)
KDE can be configured that way and always could.
For people who bought Crossover Plugin it's only 40$, so it's not that much.
This only works if there is an unchangable ordering of windows. As I said (and you seem to ignore) this means THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE TOOL WINDOW. If there is more than one, trying to make them not click up and hide each other requires a bogus ordering (like say "colors are more important than brushes and thus will always be on top"). This is totally user-unfriendly and has forced everybody to reduce everything to at most one overlapping window.
Furthermore, an application can raise itself if it wants to when it is clicked. This is a way perferrable because at least the option is there for it not to raise.
The current behavior of Windows is for back compatability only and has absolutely nothing to do with GUI preferences. An app can raise itself! Get it?
Also take a look at the X11 release notes from 1984!!! They specifically removed this "feature" from X10 because it made overlapping windows impossible. IE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND THEY GOT RID OF IT. Unfortunately Windows (and Mac and NeXT) did not study the few things X11 learned and have foisted this bad behavior on us.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with GUI studies and you really ought to think a bit before you spout garbage like that. Think again: THE APPLICATION CAN RAISE ITSELF! Got it? I hope so.
What your saying makes total sense to just about every software company making desktop apps. But you should take a look at this: Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Guidelines. Distribution and support for Win95 ended last year, 98 and NT end mid next year, and 2000 support begins transitioning out early next year.
.NET version of Office asap. .NET does exist (my co-worker is ignorantly developing with it for one of my company's secure internet sites already). And it's distributed with WinXP. They've already dropped old Office support, forcing companies like mine to move on to newer versions. New versions at work promote new versions at home. If people can only use a supported version of Office on WinXP, I'm sure many people will upgrade.
I guarantee they will make a
MS can propogate software very fast.
Developers: We can use your help.