I am the IT guy for a growing company. Currently we have some Acrobat licenses so a few people can do the PDFing (yes I know there are cheaper alternatives but it's hard to get people to use them). We use Sage ACT! as a CRM, but only version 6 because for what we use it for it's not worth the huge upgrade cost. We have an exchange server which we don't use to the full potential because of some users still running older versions of MS Office so it can run with the aforementioned version of ACT!, etc etc etc
To ensure that everyone that needs to be able to pdf can pdf would cost thousands in additional acrobat licenses. To upgrade ACT! would cost thousands in upgrade costs.
What I love about the new office is these and other things. In my professional capacity I love the fact that : - Office can save documents as PDF files using the "Save as" dialogue instead of having to PDF using Adobe Acrobat or something like PDFMaker - Office can act as a CRM (some versions - Outlook w/ Business Contact Manager). Whilst not as fully functional (have yet to test 2007) as some of the dedicated solutions it will integrate. Something that the current CRM I use refuses to do with versions of Office newer than 2002 (XP). There was a BCM in Outlook 2003 but this was not easily able to be shared across a network as it was designed as a single-user sort of product. - The new file format, while not as well supported at present, saves significant amounts of disk space. When running a server on a budget that means I have to manage the space available very carefully, the fact that Office documents willl take up 10%-60% of the space they once did is significant (the largest saving I have had on a like-for-like document is a 150kb document shrinking to 15kb)
Now on to the layout. Yes it's different. Yes I forsee a LOT of headaches coming my way teaching the less adept users how to use the new interface.
However past the initial headaches and retraining I forsee a lot of benefits. The new interface is very simple to use when you get used to it. I now use Word 2007 for all my blogging thanks to the fact it can effortlessly integrate with my Wordpress blog. I use Outlook for all my scheduling, emailing, contact in general (although in all fairness outlook seems generally unchanged on the surface)
With MS Office 2007 I will be getting all members of my company up to the same version simplifying troubleshooting because I won't have the problem that some users will be running different versions for compatinility with older software. I will be able to standardise installations because all users current and future will run MS Office 2007 and so I won't need to have loads of CDS and all that.
Well, I am starting to babble on now, all in all I love office. It will cost a lot in the short term to upgrade, that is why I will likely be opting for a volume license agreement to cut down immediate costs. I think that over time it will be worth every penny.
Ya know what, this sounds like 100% anti-ms rant
Third, support costs. If Dell is selling the software, and willing to be the first line of support, that means that they are willing to take on support costs and therefore lower Microsofts.
There are so many false assumptions in that statement I don't know where to begin. I'll simply say the statement bears no resemblence to how "support" is managed inside the PC business.
Support is awful wherever you go but if people order from dell, the average home user, they will usually either look to more computer-savvy friends/relatives for help or call the number in the manual/documentation. This number will not certainly be Microsofts number, it might be the Indian call centre next door but it won't me Microsoft.
As for prices above "market rate" it seems to me that computers with Windows in tend to weigh in as cheaper than, for the nearest example, most Macs. The only way you'll get something for nothing is using something like one of the many flavours of Linux, which for most home users just isn't really an option either due to having got used to Windows due to how common it is or just not wishing to do more work than they have to to get on the internet.
Sure you know that x y or z is a good idea, but just try to sell your idea to someone that doesn't want to know about the plus points and simply wants to get on the internet and check their emails. 99% of the time you fight a losing battle.
I was not aware of that piece of US law, damn harsh
Well maybe this is their idea of a late Christmas bonus to themselves, a way to pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel all warm and fuzzy
"Look ma, I can spell a Trillion!"
I am curious how the RIAA reach the conclusion that each download causes $150,000 in losses, if you take the fact that you can download a track with unquestionable legality from iTunes for under a quid ( $2) then that leaves up to $149,998 unaccounted for.
Do their lawyers really cost that much?
Slashdot Mirror
I am the IT guy for a growing company. Currently we have some Acrobat licenses so a few people can do the PDFing (yes I know there are cheaper alternatives but it's hard to get people to use them). We use Sage ACT! as a CRM, but only version 6 because for what we use it for it's not worth the huge upgrade cost. We have an exchange server which we don't use to the full potential because of some users still running older versions of MS Office so it can run with the aforementioned version of ACT!, etc etc etc
To ensure that everyone that needs to be able to pdf can pdf would cost thousands in additional acrobat licenses. To upgrade ACT! would cost thousands in upgrade costs.
What I love about the new office is these and other things. In my professional capacity I love the fact that :
- Office can save documents as PDF files using the "Save as" dialogue instead of having to PDF using Adobe Acrobat or something like PDFMaker
- Office can act as a CRM (some versions - Outlook w/ Business Contact Manager). Whilst not as fully functional (have yet to test 2007) as some of the dedicated solutions it will integrate. Something that the current CRM I use refuses to do with versions of Office newer than 2002 (XP). There was a BCM in Outlook 2003 but this was not easily able to be shared across a network as it was designed as a single-user sort of product.
- The new file format, while not as well supported at present, saves significant amounts of disk space. When running a server on a budget that means I have to manage the space available very carefully, the fact that Office documents willl take up 10%-60% of the space they once did is significant (the largest saving I have had on a like-for-like document is a 150kb document shrinking to 15kb)
Now on to the layout. Yes it's different. Yes I forsee a LOT of headaches coming my way teaching the less adept users how to use the new interface.
However past the initial headaches and retraining I forsee a lot of benefits. The new interface is very simple to use when you get used to it. I now use Word 2007 for all my blogging thanks to the fact it can effortlessly integrate with my Wordpress blog. I use Outlook for all my scheduling, emailing, contact in general (although in all fairness outlook seems generally unchanged on the surface)
With MS Office 2007 I will be getting all members of my company up to the same version simplifying troubleshooting because I won't have the problem that some users will be running different versions for compatinility with older software. I will be able to standardise installations because all users current and future will run MS Office 2007 and so I won't need to have loads of CDS and all that.
Well, I am starting to babble on now, all in all I love office. It will cost a lot in the short term to upgrade, that is why I will likely be opting for a volume license agreement to cut down immediate costs. I think that over time it will be worth every penny.
Does the scientific methodology involve personally sampling the beer festivals? Would be curious to see an equivilant evaluation in england heh :)
Ya know what, this sounds like 100% anti-ms rant Third, support costs. If Dell is selling the software, and willing to be the first line of support, that means that they are willing to take on support costs and therefore lower Microsofts. There are so many false assumptions in that statement I don't know where to begin. I'll simply say the statement bears no resemblence to how "support" is managed inside the PC business. Support is awful wherever you go but if people order from dell, the average home user, they will usually either look to more computer-savvy friends/relatives for help or call the number in the manual/documentation. This number will not certainly be Microsofts number, it might be the Indian call centre next door but it won't me Microsoft. As for prices above "market rate" it seems to me that computers with Windows in tend to weigh in as cheaper than, for the nearest example, most Macs. The only way you'll get something for nothing is using something like one of the many flavours of Linux, which for most home users just isn't really an option either due to having got used to Windows due to how common it is or just not wishing to do more work than they have to to get on the internet. Sure you know that x y or z is a good idea, but just try to sell your idea to someone that doesn't want to know about the plus points and simply wants to get on the internet and check their emails. 99% of the time you fight a losing battle.
It will be a vendor specific XP cd, every single Dell computer I order comes with one heh
I was not aware of that piece of US law, damn harsh Well maybe this is their idea of a late Christmas bonus to themselves, a way to pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel all warm and fuzzy "Look ma, I can spell a Trillion!"
I am curious how the RIAA reach the conclusion that each download causes $150,000 in losses, if you take the fact that you can download a track with unquestionable legality from iTunes for under a quid ( $2) then that leaves up to $149,998 unaccounted for. Do their lawyers really cost that much?