Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Renovates Office Suite as a Web Service

foobsr writes "According to an article in EcommerceTimes, Microsoft is trying to migrate Office from a product to an online service with a focus on automating collaborative work. Quote: 'Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient will be the next revolution in worker productivity, and we want to be in the forefront,' said Peter Rinearson, vice president for new business development in Microsoft's information worker group"."

57 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Much needed by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many programs need to work on operating in a collaborative environment. If you've ever coded in such a setup you can really understand how this will be a good thing for office software.

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    1. Re:Much needed by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How will this be a good thing for people who don't need the collaborative tools? It seems this is not just about collaboration; it is also about taking Office off of the desktop and putting it on the web where user registration can be more tightly controlled, upgrade paths more easily enforced, etc. And while I'm sure there will be encryption, do you really want all the data you input to office programs flying across the web? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what they mean by "web service" here -- but it sounds like they want the application on their server and the user is always a client. I don't know if I trust the MS server with that much access to my data.

    2. Re:Much needed by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This will be an awesome product for the kinds of people who love staff meetings (time wasters like this become "boss"). For people who actually like to finish things ("workers"), these will be death. Now, instead of accomplishing things, workers can have interminable interactive discussions over the most incredible minutia with their bosses.

      Some things don't matter, and this type of office software system will just magnify the productivity sucking power of "too many cooks in the kitchen" - or however it goes. You know what I mean and for this purpose, that's good enough.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:Much needed by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you for a very clear and concise description of the problem.

      The old saying "many hands make short work" (at least I think that's how it goes), doesn't apply at any sort of "office" level.

      I'm one of those people who HATES staff meetings with a passion. They're nothing but soapboxes for the type of people who like to hear themselves talk while everyone else yawns for hours. The best indication of a hard worker is those who keep their mouths SHUT at a staff meeting.

      Give me a clear email outlining the tasks I need to accomplish and soliciting my opinions on areas that require them.

      Then leave me alone to do my work. Thankyouverymuch.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    4. Re:Much needed by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How will this be a good thing for people who don't need the collaborative tools?"

      Maybe they're not the target audience. I mean, be serious, every single company who sells an upgrade to software has to face this question. Nothing new here. Current customers may not upgrade. Eventually they'll do something their customers will want and will make the leap. Yay. New customers are exposed to the new features, may find value in them. Double yay.

      " it is also about taking Office off of the desktop and putting it on the web where user registration can be more tightly controlled, upgrade paths more easily enforced, etc."

      Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article that suggested that. (I have heard rumors to that effect, tho..) Sounded more like Office talks to other computers running Office and the documents can go back and forth more easily. Frankly, people who are collaborating today are doing what you describe anyway. Emailing .doc files, copying over network, etc. Might as well streamline the process.

      "I don't know if I trust the MS server with that much access to my data."

      I doubt MS would store the data. It's probably more like ICQ where MS's server helps you find the client (or maybe it's a server the company sets up...) and the actual transfer is direct. I'm not sure mistrust of MS is any more beneficial to you in that case.

      About the web based service you described, personally in some cases I'd prefer that. Office is not my main app anymore as I've recently changed careers. I use Photoshop and Lightwave daily now. Frankly, I'd rather pay n-hundred dollars a year as a web-based subscription service for these two apps. Even if they had to call home once in a while to make sure I'm legit, that's fine by me. The potential advantages here are a.) Always up to date, b.) If they did it right, I could go from machine to machine and still be able to use the software. Eh maybe I'm just daydreaming. I'm so sick of dongles and having to keep install CDs around. I'm sick of version incompabilities. I'm sick of lots of stuff when it comes to software my living is based on.

      Consider this, if people subscribed to Office instead of the way it's done now, there'd be no more backward/forward compatibility problems. If MS updates the software, everybody's quickly up to date. Boy that'd be nice.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Much needed by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm so sick of dongles and having to keep install CDs around.

      Me, I like having my install CDs around permanently.

      Probably that's why I sold my copy of Office XP on eBay and went back to using Office 2000 (the earlier version that doesn't require 'validation' after an install).

      I have useful tools like the Micrografx suite (Designer, Picture Publisher, Flowchart, etc.) which I suspect I'll be using for another decade. Not for collaborative work, just for my own stuff. And they'll work great. Micrografx doesn't even exist anymore (devoured by Corel, who IMO make an inferior product), but my CDs still install fine.

      --
      resigned
    6. Re:Much needed by Cromac · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Even if it's a pure web service, why do you assume that you are required to use Microsoft's server? Ever hear of an intranet where you run your own web apps?

      Because this is Microsoft we're talking about and they're not likely to write a web service that runs on something other than IIS.

    7. Re:Much needed by nacturation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it probably will run only on IIS or similar Microsoft server software, but it appeared that you thought it was going to Microsoft Corporation when you wrote: "And while I'm sure there will be encryption, do you really want all the data you input to office programs flying across the web?"

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    8. Re:Much needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > Consider this, if people subscribed to Office instead of the
      > way it's done now, there'd be no more backward/forward
      > compatibility problems. If MS updates the software,
      > everybody's quickly up to date. Boy that'd be nice.

      That would be nice, if they managed to either maintain backward compatibility forever, or update all my documents (including the ones I burnt on CD).

    9. Re:Much needed by godIsaDJ · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think you'll have *serious* internal communication problems...

      Ever thought that people that dislike meetings might not be entirely right after all...

      Best way to kill a project is not loosing few hours in a metting but not knowing what other people are up to and loosing a global view of the goals.

      In layman terms:
      "Why did you modify that interface? Why didn't you tell me?" etc etc

    10. Re:Much needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Consider this, if people subscribed to Office instead of the way it's done now, there'd be no more backward/forward compatibility problems. If MS updates the software, everybody's quickly up to date. Boy that'd be nice.

      Assuming everything works. Of course, it is possible that the new version breaks compatibility just for the features you were using. A real life example (admittedly not from Microsoft):
      My brother once was working on a database programming project with Clipper. Close to finishing, the university changed the Clipper version on its server. He found out that the new Clipper version and his almost-complete software were incompatible. Cost him several week to migrate his code.

      Now if this happens with old-fashioned off-the -shelf software, you can just reinstall the old version. If your application provider switches to a new version, you may be not so lucky.

    11. Re:Much needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What kind of dream world are you living in?

      It's probably more like ICQ where MS's server helps you find the client (or maybe it's a server the company sets up...) and the actual transfer is direct. I'm not sure mistrust of MS is any more beneficial to you in that case.

      They don't need or want the actual data. What if MS's server just decides that it won't help you find the client anymore? At least not until you pay up for a new subscription or a new version of the software? And, at the same time, the other end that you want to collaborate with is forced to cough up too? Gee, that doubles Microsoft's revenue for every upgrade but causes you double the time and energy for every upgrade. No: mistrust of Microsoft is entirely warranted here!

      Frankly, I'd rather pay n-hundred dollars a year as a web-based subscription service for these two apps. Even if they had to call home once in a while to make sure I'm legit, that's fine by me. The potential advantages here are a.) Always up to date, b.) If they did it right, I could go from machine to machine and still be able to use the software.

      And when one of those upgrades makes your project incompatible with the new software? I have routinely run into cases where updating libraries caused me to be unable to recompile code that I worked on 1 or 2 years ago. We just recently had a printed circuit board revision that had to be edited into the Gerber file directly because several revisions of the PCB layout software made it impossible to edit the layout directly. The last switch in Office that we made (from Office 97 to Office 2K) required minor formatting changes in every manual that we had created under Word for the previous 5 years. Imgaine if you came into work one day, needed to make a minor revision to a manual and then found that you had to reformat the entire manual because Microsoft had updated your software during the night! What you had scheduled 1 or 2 hours for now becomes a 2 day nightmare. How do you meet production schedules now? How do you even schedule production? You never know when these things are going to occur.

      I'm so sick of dongles and having to keep install CDs around.

      This has nothing to do with software updates and everything to do with copy protection. Just say no to copy-protected software! Then you can run it whereever you want! Then you can lock away the install disks and not worry about them until it needs to be re-installed on a new machine to replace the old one. And you wouldn't have waste time to re-register the software again on the new machine. These are only fixes to problems that were created artificially by software companies.

      Consider this, if people subscribed to Office instead of the way it's done now, there'd be no more backward/forward compatibility problems. If MS updates the software, everybody's quickly up to date. Boy that'd be nice.

      Consider this, if MS would just quit changing their proprietary spec for .doc files, wouldn't that be nice? If MS updates the software during the night, what happens to all those old files that you have archived? Are you going to be forced to convert every single document that you created over the last few years everytime MS updates their software? What a time/productivity waster that would be!

    12. Re:Much needed by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hopefully it will crash frequently enough that anyone trying to grab my data will be foiled :)

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  2. Re: great idea by prof_peabody · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think Microsoft is on the right course here. I pass around docs all the time and use the ever problematic "track changes in word". A wikipedia style approach would be nice, as long as it's usuable and handles images well.

  3. Microsoft is INOVATING again... by matz62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure they will Call this INOVATION when we all know its just the same old stuff with a web brower on it.

    How lame of Microsoft.

  4. we want to be in the forefront by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    we want to be in the forefront

    And we want you to give Microsoft a copy of all of your important business documents. Who could think that was not a good idea?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:we want to be in the forefront by targo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we want to be in the forefront

      And we want you to give Microsoft a copy of all of your important business documents. Who could think that was not a good idea?


      "Being an online service" doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft is hosting it. This is actually geared more towards individual companies setting up internal document management and collaboration servers (like SharePoint), Slashdot summary is simply misleading in that regard.

    2. Re:we want to be in the forefront by Johnno74 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Did you read the article?

      Microsoft don't want to force anyone to access MS office remotely from their servers on Redmond or anything. Infact, they aren't even that interested in going thin client - why would they, it would reduce the number of windows licenses they can sell.

      They are thinking of new ways of allowing people to colaborate on projects/documents, they are looking beyond the standard model of network drives, email and templates we use now, and they are actually doing some fairly cool stuff. The glue that holds all these colaboration tools together does run on a server, but microsoft don't want to provide the service, just the software.

      They realize that office software is becoming a comodity, and they are looking beyond that - and at the same time trying to make sure the OS doesn't also become a comodity. To survive, both office and windows need something to differentiate them from all their competitors, like OpenOffice and linux, and microsoft seem to be banking on building colaboration tools into office and windows to provide that differentiation.

      Like it or not, I think MS is years ahead of open source in this area.

    3. Re:we want to be in the forefront by MarkEst1973 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      don't forget about Longhorn. Think about how much sense it makes for Microsoft to ship sandboxed code over the net running on an desktop that can readily accept it?

      It's like the Java Web Start, only from MS. You open an app, download it (single version to work on, no more multiple versions, all updates happen for everyone at once), run the app locally thanks to sandboxed code via Longhorn, save documents locally (no longer a security threat by giving MS your docs), and MS charges you a nice-and-steady subscription fee instead of making money selling licensenses.

    4. Re:we want to be in the forefront by grcumb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, they want to send MS code over the network so that people can run it sight unseen on a local machine that's 'ready to accept it'?

      AND this service is going to be 'easy to use' and 'safe' just like all the other MS products we've seen in the past?

      AND... businesses are going to pay for this pleasure?

      Before I start laughing so hard I fall from my chair, may I remind you that the last time they wanted to integrate online capabilities into their software they gave us IE and Outlook?

      I'm sorry, the Emperor still has no clothes.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    5. Re:we want to be in the forefront by T-Ranger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sure. Microsoft has never forced customers to upgrade or anything. Since they are such a down and out company, Ill give them some advice:
      1. Make the new app require a new version of the server thinger.
      2. Make the new server thinger require a new version of the client thinger.
      3. Make the new client thinger require a new OS version.
      4. Customer buys a new app, server thinger, client thinger, OS
      5. Profit!
    6. Re:we want to be in the forefront by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      products don`t have to be good to do that. it usually goes something like this

      hm... computer... it already comes with windows... windows in an OS(its not, or wasn`t when all this was going on, but people thought the GUI was the OS itself)... hm....its saying to double click this little blue `e` which says internet explorer, it must be the internet. I used to hear things about buying netscape, but hey, this comes with the computer.

      Of course, then no one knew about security. yes other things are available, but were rarely free when the market was actually competitive so MS just gave the stuff away with windows. take one monopoly(besides the contracts they made with distributors charging them more than others if they used anything from a competitor) and make it into many. It doesn`t take a lot and deffinitely doesn`t take the best product to it with, just more illegal moves. Remember that whole antitrust thing before you start giving them too much credit for quality. And there were never lower cost alternatives from competitors that you could easily get, there is a difference when you hand someone something for free and make them go get something for free. You have to be a lot worse to get people to replace an already free product. And guess what, its happening. People are moving away from IE as they see better and safer alternatives. Its slow to happen, but its happening.

      As outlook goes, its still up in the air and if things like apache stay ahead of them, it will always be up in the air.

  5. Forefront? Hasn't this already been done? by Brackney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I seem to recall there are already web-based office suites available - Hyperoffice comes to mind as one...

  6. It may be necessary... by datastalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...since according to the article:

    "Because the next version of Windows, called Longhorn, may not ship until 2007, analysts say, the Office overhaul is needed in the meantime to deliver more Web services technology to the desktop. The new capabilities in the Office system are also needed to lure software developers to create more applications that run on Microsoft products."

    If they can't reinvent Office, and their next version of Windows won't be out until 2007, their income streams will dry up and they'll need to tap into their cash reserves, which I'm sure is the last thing they want to do.

  7. first things first-- by User+956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient will be the next revolution in worker productivity

    Aren't they kind of putting the wagon before the horse? Shouldn't they work on making the product just work correctly when you're by yourself?

    Trying to work in Microsoft Word is like trying to build a house of cards during a fucking earthquake.

    ...And they should get rid of that fucking talking paperclip while they're at it.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:first things first-- by Coneasfast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      stop complaining about the fucking paperclip. it literally takes 10 seconds to turn the thing off and you never have to worry about it again.

      i don't mind clippy jokes, but it's annoying when people continuosly complain about it.

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    2. Re:first things first-- by Leebert · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Aren't they kind of putting the wagon before the horse? Shouldn't they work on making the product just work correctly when you're by yourself?

      Trying to work in Microsoft Word is like trying to build a house of cards during a fucking earthquake.


      Oh, what a load of crap. Have you actually even USED Windows 2000 or later, and Microsoft Office 2000 or later? I NEVER have any of these apps crash on me.

      OpenOffice.Org under Linux crashes on me. Not often, it's quite rare, but it happens.

      I swear the anti-MS FUD around here is really, really starting to get to me. People on /. can't just say "Hey, neat idea, I hope it works out." Comments can't be "Gee, I wonder how it will work" , nooo, they have to be "Gawsh, If it comes from Micro$oft it must crash every 3 minutes! ha ha ha I'm so funny and original!"

      ...And they should get rid of that fucking talking paperclip while they're at it.

      They did, but you're so busy being a bigot you failed to notice.

    3. Re:first things first-- by nacturation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I swear the anti-MS FUD around here is really, really starting to get to me.

      I'll probably get modded to oblivion for saying this, but the Linux FUD is different from the Microsoft FUD. For Linux zealots, FUD stands for Fanaticism and Undying Devotion. The zealots want a reason to believe that their software/ideals/whatever is better, so they mindlessly attack anything which contradicts their ideology. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:first things first-- by deimtee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about the GP, but my gripes with windows and office aren't about it crashing, although it does occaisionally, but more about how difficult it is to do anything slightly different to the way microsoft expect it to be done.

      The two examples which piss me off the most (because I use them the most) are the "Search" function that replaced the old "Find Files", and the mail merge tool in Word.
      They keep reducing functionality by dumbing it down and locking you in to using wizards that don't do what you need.

      If it wasn't that I need compatibility with our customers, I'd roll everything back to NT4 and Office 97.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    5. Re:first things first-- by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What would you suggest a person use?

      Whatever OS their required software runs on. For me, that's gone Windows -> Linux -> Windows. Right now, swtiching back to Linux (if I wanted to) is not an option. Besides which, I've found that a properly maintained XP box crashes as often as a properly maintained Linux box - ie, essentially never.

      I think the reason some of us are getting tired of all the unnecessary anti-MS FUD is because the people spreading it keep on harping on about stuff that's not been true (for us at least) for years. Instability? The four XP machines I use are all perfectly stable. Unsecure? Again, all the machines I use are secure (or at least, have never been compromised, which is all you can really say). Costly? No more so than buying a copy of a Linux distro, and that's when I didn't get the licence with the machine. (Sure, I could just download it, but everyone's got bills to pay.)

      About the only arguments the anti-MS people really have left are ethical ones, and I'm not convinced that MS are actually any worse than any other large companies in that respect. Better than a lot, in fact - while they may be patenting stuff I find questionable, they've not (yet?) sued anyone for infringement. That's more than can be said of a lot of companies.

  8. This could be a mixed blessing... by DrHex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft will either perpetuate their poor programming practices to a platform that will allow viruses to become even more virulent and worms to spread even faster. Wonderful. Or they'll take this opportunity to build apps that will run cross platform. Alot of potential good here. Mixed with alot of potential bad. Increasing the need for the Windows Server platform if they don't create Office as a cross-platform collaborative environment. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

    --
    Scientia et Potentia
  9. Subscription based by st3v · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since people would probably stop buying newer versions of Office because they won't offer much productivity increase, I think this is a way to force people to keep paying money for Office.

    1. Re:Subscription based by Evangelion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      umm, you're not paying to keep running the software -- you're paying for the labour expended to create the updated virus definition files.

  10. Re:Hello, vaporware! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    which makes OO and even more appealing option...

  11. Let me get this straight by stox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many times have Microsoft internet based services been down for extended periods? How many billions would such an outage cost, in worker productivity, if office was provided a a web service? The implications are downright scary.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  12. What it really means by platypussrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not new. I was at a conference over two years ago and heard a talk about .net from some MS developer. Every other word out of his mouth was "software as a service".

    What I took home from this was the notion that MS wanted to migrate everything they do to web services... why?

    They claim it's because all updates will happen automatically and be transparant to the user.

    My theory is that it's really because it gives them total control over what you can do. You will never own anything. Just rent the service. You will always be trapped in the "pay your MS tax or you can't even open your own documents" nightmare. What a terrible plan for the users.

  13. This won't work... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft needs to realise that Office is firmly fixed in the minds of 99 percent of its user base as an word processor/spreadsheet/presentation graphics/database/email client suite. It wouldn't matter if they bolted a space shuttle onto it, as far as the overwhelming majority of people would be concerned, it would still be all about Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access and Outlook.

    Trying to leverage Office into other roles is not going to work. Yes, some people will make use of a web service feature but it will go virtually ignored by all but that tiny fraction that tries out everything new Office paradigm because Microsoft tells them that it's the best thing since sliced bread.

    Office users get what they want out of Office right now. They're happy sharing documents by email and other means. So why would they and their organisations throw all that away and take the time, effort and money to implement a web services-orientated approach? Who wants to explain to the CEO that he's got to stop asking people to email him documents and start asking them to publish them, and that he's got to do the same with his own output too? Who wants to retrain all their end-users to this new way of thinking?

    Microsoft has a real problem right now with its Office suite and it knows it. It's not that Office doesn't work, it's that it works too damn well: what virtually every Office user wants to do document-wise has been possible for quite some time now.

    There's very little that Microsoft can do to the individual applications to improve them by delivering new features with tangible benefits, and certainly the applications in Office XP weren't significantly better than those in Office 2000, so it's obsessed with "improving" Office by trying to manage how people work. This kind of improvement might deliver results in Microsoft's labs but in the real world, where people are resistant to change and have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, it's doomed to failure.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  14. Ah yes, the holy grail of software development... by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    subscription based services. This is a step in that direction. Microsoft is scrambling for a way to get people to 'subscribe' to office because they ran out of features worth upgrading for with office 97 (well, for probably 80% of thier users anyway, and that 20% isn't gonna sustain the growth shareholders have come to expect).

    I don't see the benefit to this for anyone but Microsoft. I don't think the Internet could handle 250 million people 'streaming' office. Which means something's gonna get installed, and it's gonna be just as much a pain to fix when it breaks as the current office. Oh well, maybe crap like this will encourage openoffice.

    Off topic, but I've notice a funny trend in office suites. I'm seeing more and more people running openoffice because their computer got laid waste by a virus, and they didn't get any CDs from thier OEM (or lost em). Buying office without buying a computer isn't an option for most people, so they're driven to oo.org :).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. more power to Word by wotevah · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The new design makes programs like Word, Excel and Outlook e-mail part of collaborative work spaces. In theory, an employee working in Word could tap into all the corporate information on a customer or project.

    Adding a full-blown language with OS hooks into Word, responsible for an entire generation of viruses, wasn't enough, let's make Word even more "powerful".

    They seem to keep ignoring that these programs (and whatever they may spawn) have the same privileges as the employee, so if the employee "could tap into all the corporate information" then so can Word and Excel and so will the next macro virus using the new "technology".

  16. i think i remember this... by ecalkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Besides not liking to pay for software as a service, there was another huge problem that still is a problem. WAN reliability. I have been amazed at all the people that don't really understand how *unreliable* the wide area connection is.

    I had a case where a business was going to ditch their business management system (for an insurance sales co) for a 'web based' system. this was just *after* his dsl had been down for a week. I tried to explain that if he was using the web based system and his dsl went down he would not have *any* information available. And he didn't understand/believe me.

    And then their are DOS attacks and other problems on the internet that may prevent you from getting to the MS Office web server.... sheesh.

    I expect this to crash and burn again.

    eric

  17. GREAT move for Microsoft! by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that's a wonderful move for them really. That's exactly what people have been begging for. It's important that business increases its dependance on the internet as a means of doing business. I think the idea is very sound. By the way, did they ever fix that problem with ActiveX being a huge security risk?

  18. Re:vaporware? only for now. it's the right step. by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MS Office over the internet will succeed where the Java Web Start failed.

    Microsoft has already totally compromised the security of Windows by uintegrating the desktop with the Internet, now you think integrating the office suite with the Internet is a step forward?

    A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again when you know it doesn't work.

  19. Pirate protection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You may not realize this? But you hit on another benefit of a web based app. Controlling piracy.

    Add in guarenteed revenue stream. Also if MS does this and it succeeds (bad idea or not), then you'll see a rush of other web-based apps.

    Throw in the DRM MS has ben working on, and...

    Are pirate's days numbered?

  20. "Extends" not "Renovates" by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Office and SharePoint 2003 have begun this move. It is not turning into a web service as the summary suggests, but instead utilizing web services for collaboration.

    The company I work for has been using SharePoint for Issue tracking in our software applications for nearly a year. It was way easier to setup and use than bugzilla and several other free alternatives. And the issue tracker is a very secondary feature of SharePoint!

    It allows the creation of document libraries that can associate arbitrary metadata with documents. When you save a document from an Office application is can actually be saved directly to the SharePoint document library (you can browse to the web page in the save as dialog and it shows a little html based page right in the mini-explorer and you can save there like a normal file). After clicking save, if the document library has been extended with metadata (by any non-tech-savvy user) you are prompted to enter that data.

    You can also create document workspaces which are document libraries that have an associated message board, contacts list, task list and other odds and ends. All of that information appears in a sidebar in any office application which lets you instant message, email, or assign a task to a contact related to the document you are working on. Documents in any type of document library allow for versioning and check-in/out functionality.

    InfoPath is probably the coolest Office application when it comes to collaboration. If you fill out an InfoPath form, the xml output can be funneled into a SharePoint document library which can calculate statistics from the documents and sort/organize them for you.

    Its only the first version of the Office System that uses this functionality, and we all know it takes Microsoft 3 tries to get anything just right. Luckily, the system works well on the first try, I can't wait for the third attempt!

    --
    http://brandonbloom.name
  21. Re:Hello, vaporware! by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's also quite possible for others to extend Office functionality to integrate with a document management system. We do it, as I'm sure many, many others do.

    --
    www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
  22. Web no longers means internet by flsquirrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first thing to realize is that a web service no longer indicates internet anymore. It's a shift in paradigm. It's time for a lot of you guys to throw out your blue polyester shirts and suspenders. Web simply means it's delivered from a central location and typically works through a browser or derivative of a browser. This doesn't mean 2 billion users will be streaming office from microsoft.com. It doesn't mean that when MS's servers go down that the entire world will be without Office.

    This is simply the realization of the thin client paradigm. As corporate environments go, it's about time.

    And before anyone panics about all those stand alone machines out there (like us developers are all so fond of), there are a bunch of appies out there that are essentially written this way already. VS.NET is web driven. That front end is all xml/html driven. We see it with the MS management console and MSC snappins for it too. This is the sort of thing we're looking at with the future of office.

    The front end will be web based. The back end will likely have a few different options and standalone on the local machine I would wager will still be one of them. But at the same time, the back end could be centralized greatly simplifying mangement. I wouldn't be suprised if the next incarnation of Visual Studio can be set up to compile on a central server.

    This should in theory simplify development of the Office software and reduce all versions of Office to a single codebase once .NET reaches full maturity and is available for other platforms. Realistically, Linux might be running MS office in the near future.

  23. Re:Who needs this? by Rev+Saxon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Was going to moderate this one, but I would just like to say, if there wasnt a windows, odds are there wouldnt be a Linux (just take a good honest look at the gui, the coding behind it non-withstanding). And if there was a linux, all the cute little sypware and bonzi-buddies of the world would have been written for the prodomatly linux world. Its easy to sit back and bash MS, but if they wernt around, it would be someone else. Its just smart to code crap for the prodomant OS, especially if your purpose is malware.

    --
    I am that much more enlightened and proportionally disillusioned
  24. Re:Hello, vaporware! by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That must have been around 2000-2001, when Microsoft was calling the new version of every product .NET. That was annoying as hell, as most people couldn't even figure out exactly what .net was supposed to be. That's what happens when you let the marketing department get out of control.

  25. Re: great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I still use Office '97. None of the newer versions, 2000, 2002, 2003, XP, whatever, offer men anything more that I would actually use. '97 has less bloat and plenty good enough for most peoples needs. Sheesh, how many upgrade to each version but get little difference, except for Outlook I guess.

  26. Re:vaporware? only for now. it's the right step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, the clinical definition of insanity resembles this (I'm paraphrasing):

    The repetition of previous actions for which there is a known outcome with the expectation of a differing outcome.

    You may want to commit that to memory.

  27. good news for the competition by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So Microsoft wants to find a way to completely lock people into subscription type licensing. Big deal. Sounds like a good oportunity for Open Office to step in.

    When people don't want to worry about the security of their data moving across the 'net (I don't know why, seeing as how Microsoft products are so... ahem... secure... NOT!), or not being able to work when the network is congested or down, they will use something else. Open Office is one alternative (with the added benefit of being free, as in beer)... and for those who want to pay, Word Perfect is still out there...

    So Microsoft, knock yourself out. There are other choices. Who knows, maybe after a taste of open source software, people will start using Linux more? ;-)

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  28. So we see another example of browser wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm sure this will be another blow to alternate browsers. More than likely they will end up having this Web Office as an ActiveX control and people with Linux/Mozilla/Opera/etc will be unable to use it. If this is purely aimed at business why don't they just intergrate it into the next "Windows Server" so that business's can still use applications. It really doesn't make sense to me having to work through your browser.

  29. Re:Hello, vaporware! by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah, thanks.

    So it's collaborative, but not concurrent - I guess that solves a good portion of these problems, but may hamper workflow. I guess it's a decent trade-off, at least from the software developer's perspective. :)

  30. They've also proven Microsoft web != portable by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft has nasty habit they have of creating so-called "websites" that don't follow standards and won't run on anything but Windows, where they use the same entry points and callbacks that cause security problems for the native code. If I still have to use a Microsoft "browser", it does nothing for collaboration. In fact it makes the situations worse as you won't be able to use anything like Crossover anymore.

    If I want a collaborative online environment, I use a webserver and CSS. Why would I want to go anywhere near a proprietary lock-in format just to share content? Why not WebDAV? ssh-ftp with a file manager hook ala Gnome? CVS?

    My third concern is standalone operation. Just how in the world am I to do editing at a cabin, while travelling, or otherwise unable to connect at any kind of useful speed?

    Not that it really matters, I guess, as I use Open Office for pretty much everything except Excel. They did do a nice job on the spreadsheet, and too many sheets have to use non-portable macros.

    Eventually maybe Microsoft will clue in that "service model" does not mean the same thing as the old mainframe style "software rental." It's not a cash cow to keep sucking people's wallets, it's a way of providing flexible updates and maintenance as ongoing services instead of oft-delayed "service packs" or patches.

    Besides, what makes Microsoft think I'd even think about letting their servers manage my document data? That stays right here in my managed environment where I know it's backed up and safe, thank-you-very-much!

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  31. Recipe for lock-in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Consider this, if people subscribed to Office instead of the way it's done now, there'd be no more backward/forward compatibility problems. If MS updates the software, everybody's quickly up to date."

    Also, if MS updates the software, everyone could be instantaneously file-incompatible with OpenOffice or whatever other competitor MS is worried about. If this beast really gets under way, MS could make it impossible for companies to *ever* get their data back and shift to other software.

  32. Web Services?! Faster!? by ediron2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient
    Yeah, because those are the very words I always think of to describe web services. I use webmail for convenience. I use web-based tools other times in emergencies. There's even one or two tools (remote nslookups and security scans) I'll use in a moment of desperation. Never for speed and efficiency...
  33. Business Customers by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's fine for the enterprise license holders which ( might ) be allowed to run the services on their network.

    Problem is home users wont get that luxury, and will have to start renting their office suite, if they are going to stick with a Microsoft based suite.

    But we all knew this day was coming so its no surprise. They will also move their OS to that same model, if they can find a way.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----