Slashdot Mirror


Office 2003 Beta 2 Screen Shots

frooyo writes "ActiveWin is displaying screenshots of Office 2003 Beta 2 including pictures of Outlook, Excel, Word etc. As seen by the screenshot - the task based interface is much more prominent. Also - Outlook's three-vertical-pane interface is now the default." Nice to get a head start on what we'll be cloning next year ;)

22 of 693 comments (clear)

  1. First Look! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    at Open Office 2013!

  2. but by REBloomfield · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's just a shame that they're remooving support for the legacy operating systems. New collaboration features will be a great benefit, as will the native XML support, so it seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot by removing older O/Ss from the requirements

    Although, as an active directory admin with a few Office 97 clients left in an office XP environment, Office 97 shoots right through my GPO lockdowns.... god knows why, it just bypasses all the security... so if this helps bring a unified base, then I'm all for it....

    1. Re: but by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > It's just a shame that they're remooving support for the legacy operating systems. ...it seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot by removing older O/Ss from the requirements

      I'm sure they'll be happy to make you a deal on a new operating system.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:but by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps this will be the first really good reason to port Wine to Windows.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    3. Re:but by Sentry21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sort of ashamed to say this, but I'm glad Microsoft is starting to tell users (in a roundabout way) 'sorry, you can't play with the big boys, because your OS SUCKS' (in relative terms).

      Administering a Windows 98 machine on a 2K network is horrible. The methods for implementing everything are mixed up, you can't specify a home directory, the netlogon scripts don't even run (they run, but do nothing), and so on.

      Microsoft's problem has always been keeping backwards compatibility until it shot them in the foot. DOS compatibility screwed up Windows 95, Windows 3.1 compatibility screwed up Windows 95, but of course they had to have it. The extra code, the extra junk, the more support, the ifs, the whiches, the switch/cases to make it all work on OSes that just aren't reasonably modern, it's a joke. If you can run Office 2k3, you can run Windows 2k. Upgrade. Seriously.

      Kudos to Microsoft for leaving the stragglers behind so they can make a better product (god knows they need it often enough).

      --Dan

  3. cloning by oooooops · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've already seen all the comments about clone wars blah blah blah

    on a more serious note is cloning the way to win? doubtful - how about innovating making it better rather than just cloning

    1. Re:cloning by tjansen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      on a more serious note is cloning the way to win?

      If it is cloning improvements: yes, certainly. It's not like MS would not clone features of the X11 desktop environment. For example the Longhorn previews showed CDE/KDE/Gnome-features like virtual desktops and panel applets.

    2. Re:cloning by govtcheez · · Score: 5, Funny

      The cloning thing worked for MS...

      No, remember, this is Slashdot. If Linux does it it's "cloning"; if MS does it it's "stealing".

  4. imitation by eric6 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    For how much crap MS gets, they sure are imitated. Is this

    • flattery?
    • lack of creativity in interface design?
    • following the lead of a big company with lots of usability research?
    • a big bandwagon?
    • camoflage, to keep from scaring off [new] users of non-MS products?


    Personally, i like the office interface, but perhaps that's just because i'm so familiar with it.

    --

    --
    fight global cooling

    1. Re:imitation by redfenix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, i like the office interface, but perhaps that's just because i'm so familiar with it.

      I think you just answered your own question.

      --
      "It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
  5. You know it's a reputable site... by Jonboy+X · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...when it starts popping up online casino ads at you.

    --

    "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
  6. Good thing Taco is an editor by ACNiel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    His ideas don't jive with the slashdot crowd. Sort of funny, in a way, how the people he attracted have taken his creation in an entirely different direction. Not totally different, but definitely more zealous than the creator.

    That comment about what will be cloned next year, if in a comment, would be labeled as flamebait or a troll. I find it refreshing that at least the editors realize certain realities.

    One of the main ones is that, yes the linux desktop borrows heavily from MS, and not the other way around, which a lot of people like to proclaim.

  7. screenshots HERE! by dogas · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'm not sure if they are the same as the slashdotted server, but here we go.

    HERE!

    god I'm such a karma whore.
    --
    'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
  8. Great... by maxbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another $600 word processor from Microsoft. Even when I'm at a job where they use Office, nobody ever uses anything but Word to type some useless bullet points, or Excel to make a pointless chart. Tasks? Never used. I had a PHB who tried to assign me tasks once. He couldn't hotsync for a week after that.

    --
    I also reply below your current threshold.
  9. mmmm by odyrithm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nice to get a head start on what we'll be cloning next year ;)

    that points out a very specific problem with the open/free source movements... plenty of hardcore coders but a serious lack of good ui designers.

    --
    moo
  10. Re:Another upgrade by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Other than Outlook, I haven't seen an improvement in Office since Office 97, and even THAT was iffy over Office95...

    Word XP can do non-consecutive text selections (you have _no_ idea how nice this is until you have it). 2000 introduced a multiple-item clibboard, and it doubled in size in XP--in addition to an overhaul of the word mail-merge wizard, and numerous other small improvements (like the HTML export being almost standard).

    Not sure of these are $100 upgrades, but they ARE improvements.

  11. Re:Numb by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was virtually no difference between Office and Office 97. The differences between Office 97 and 2000 were mostly visual (and the addition of broken compatibilities). The differences between Windows 98 and Windows ME were just pointless. I still consider Windows XP an expensive, restrictively licensed downgrade to Windows 2000.

    In all that, you're right on the money for 98/ME; ME never should have been, and if not for RAMBUS it wouldn't have been. But as for the rest: MS has got lots of small improvements in each iteration of office. Blame planned obsolescence.

    * Office 97 was the first package with reasonable HTML built-in. Yes, it's bloated HTML with all of the Office metadata, and yes, they'd have been better if they copied Acrobat's Word-UI. But that's neither here nor there.

    * Office 2000 introduced a whole heck of new features--most notably for most of us, those auto-hiding menus, multiple windows in the taskbar, and a built-in clipboard that can hold twelve "cuts."

    * Office XP doubled the size of the clipboard, gave word discontinuous selection ability, and introduced that somewhat-useful task pane.

    * Windows XP, over 2000, has a major improvement just in explorer.exe. You can customize your start menu to your heart's content, the system tray auto-hide (or mannualy hide) icons, and the gooy GUI is, if nothing else, "new." (And being able to turn off all of the above is rather nice, too.)

  12. Who's going to buy it? by wfrp01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You like MS Office, you say? Who's going to buy this for you? Are you going to buck up for your own copy at home? Or, like most people, are you expecting your company to buy it for you? That way, it's kind of like it doesn't really cost anything, right? Except it does cost something. It's money your company could have paid you directly. It's money your company could have used to improve their market penetration. It's money your company could have used to improve their facilities. It's money that could have been used to increase the R&D budget. It's money that could have been used to hire additional staff. And on and on.

    But a new version of Office with pretty new buttons and a three panel view like Outlook? A new version that's intentionally incompatible with everything else in the world, including Microsoft's own products? That's precious.

    --

    --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
  13. And here's a shot of Office 12 by shadwwulf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here is a shot straight for the UI testing lab for Office 12

    Or at least it could be considering how pre-schoolish UI's are getting these days.

  14. Re:Clone wars! by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Funny

    English: The Clone Wars have begun.
    Yodish: Begun, the Clone Wars have.
    Soviet Russia: In Soviet Russia, Clone Wars begin you!
    Yodish Soviet Russia: You, in Soviet Russia the Clone Wars begin... Umm, no wait... Arrgh!

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  15. Re:Clone wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's try to work this out.

    English usally has a sentence structure in the form SVO, or Subject Verb Object. In this sentence, "The Clone Wars" is the subject, "have" is the verb, and "begun" is the object. Notice that the verb cluster "to begin" has been seperated into verb and object, in the passive voice sentence.

    Now, Yodish uses the OSV (Object Subject Verb) construction. So the literal translation from English to Yodish would be "Begun" "The Clone Wars" "Have". This parses nicely into "Begun, the Clone Wars have." quite nicely, as the parent has done.

    Soviet Russian uses the OVS (Object Verb Subject) construction. So the transliteration would be "Begun" "Have" "The Clone Wars". Now we take into account some of the unique features of Soviet Russian. First, the definite article "the" is dropped, yielding "Begun have Clone Wars". Also, Soviet Russian only has one tense, the present, giving us "Begin have Clone Wars". Now is the confusing part. Soviet Russian treats the phrase "begin have" as just the verb, dropping the object, yielding "___ begin Clone Wars". However, an implied object is forbidden. When an implied object is present, the subject becomes the object, and the implied subject "you" is added. So we get "Clone Wars begin ___", which leads to "Clone Wars begin you", as shown in the parent.

    Now onward to Yodish Soviet Russian. As English becomes Soviet Russian by reversing the sentence order, SVO to OVS, then likewise, Yodish becomes Yodish Soviet Russian by reversing the OSV construction to VSO. So we get a transliteration to "have the Clone Wars begun". We drop the definite article and switch tense to get "have Clone Wars begin". We make the object "begin" into the verb, with the result "begin Clone Wars ___". We then make the subject into the object and add the implied subject "you", getting "Begin you Clone Wars". Now it's just a minor clean-up, with the final result:

    In Yodish Soviet Russia, begin YOU, the clone wars do!

  16. Re:security by greed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What on earth has "security problems" got to do with "word processor"? I realize the macro facility in Word & friends has some potential for abuse, but that is a very unique feature of those products. Remember when we told everyone that virus warnings about word processor files or e-mail were scams and to just ignore them? It wasn't very long ago.

    If the Claris Works 3 that came with my 7-year-old Mac does what I need, I don't need to upgrade. No security issues, nothing. Legacy systems don't _have_ modern security issues because they don't have the "integration" with "duh internet". Heck, if it isn't on the net, what security issues are there? (Besides, Macs didn't used to have listening ports by default.)

    Still like PaperClip on the old 8-bit micros? What possible security issues could there be? You're not going to get 0wn3d through a 300 bps originate-only modem.

    I know Office is a whole other problem security-wise, but I take offense at the blanket statement that ALL old software should just die.