Ten times less features? Looking at a default install of Open Office Writer, I see 46 features within 1 click. In Word I see 42 features within 1 click. Features within 2 clicks are much higher in Word than Open Office Writer.
You're trying to claim that Microsoft has a monopoly in office suites? Sure they have a majority marketshare but a monopoly? With options like LibreOffice, Google Docs out there which are free and incredibly easy to switch to, where exactly is the monopoly?
The examples you are giving is that LibreOffice doesn't place things where Office does. That isn't the same as self-discovery.
Sure it is. Let's say I open Word and I want to add a biliography. After scanning the tabs, the obvious one is References, with second place being Insert. Then all the options are right there in front of me. In Writer, Insert is the most obvious menu, but there is no option for bibliography. There's an option for indexes and tables, and even in there the option to add a bibliography is missing, but hidden under the nondescriptive "Index and Tables."
The old menu requires you to carefully search through each flyout in each menuto find something. In the ribbon, those flyouts are all open at once, so what is an O(n^2) search in the old menu, is a O(n) search in the ribbon. Due to this design, the chances are the function you want is only 2 clicks away at most, and if you don't know where it is finding it should take less time, and at the very most you'll relegate yourself to the help box much faster if something is not present on the ribbon menu.
As for customizing the ribbon, how do I know that I need to customize the ribbon before I know that it doesn't have the option I want. I first have to search all the ribbons then help or whatever to find my option. At that point I can decide if the feature is important enough to customize the ribbon. That's as silly as asking me do I know where I misplaced my keys. If I knew where I misplaced my keys, they wouldn't be misplaced. Is that any clearer?
You still haven't answered how this is different than any other interface? How do I know I have to customize the menu interface before searching through the menu interface. Your complaint is not specific to the ribbon at all.
Hard to say that for productivity software. Slashdot contends that the ribbon decreases productivity. If this were true, why would people even buy Office 2010 after experiencing a productivity decrease with 2007? If this were true, why hasn't the marketshare of Open Office increased dramatically? If 200 million people are out there using this software and it's slowing them down so much, where is the global outrage outside of Slashdot?
Thanks for commenting on a product you haven't used. You have not used Office 2010, because if you had, you would see the big colored tab with the word "File" in it.
here are a few reasons to dislike the ribbon. If you're on a small screen, it uses a lot more real estate than the menus. They don't have the shortcut keys next to all of the options, which means that you don't learn the shortcuts for commonly used things as easily as you do with the menu. Finally, unlike the old toolbars, the ribbon does not allow you to put commonly used but unrelated things on the screen at the same time.
The AC mentioned these points but I want to reiterate them so more can see, since you're modded +4 insightful yet you're completely uniformed:
1) I've done the calculation: From the top of the screen to the top of the page, the default ribbon layout in Word uses THE SAME vertical space than the default menu+toolbars in open office writer. Further, you can minimize the ribbon by double clicking on it. Can't do that with toolbars. Further still, the ribbon scales better to the screen size; whereas the ribbon adjusts the size of buttons, keeping them visible on the screen, the menu system will hide them in a drop down list.
2) There are keyboard shortcuts to every feature in the ribbon. Press Alt and follow the letters. This is more discoverable and provides more functionality.
3) You can put any shortcuts you want in the quick access toolbar at the top of the screen, or you're free to customize the tabs in any way you wish including adding your own tabs.
What you're missing is that before the ribbon it was easier to self discover the menu option that was needed and it wasn't buried 3 menus deep.
It was easy to self discover, how? By doing an exhaustive search on the menus? Because they're not that intuitive. For example, in OO if I want to edit a bibliography, I have to go to Tools-Bibliography Database. If I want to add the bibliography to the document I have to go to Insert - Indexes and Tables - Bibliography Entry, where I can either add an item to the document's biblography database (which is separate from the bibliography database in the tools menu for some reason) or I can add a specific entry. Then to insert the actualy bib to the document you go to the oh so intuitive Insert - Indexes and Tables - Insert - Indexes and Tables, where you can insert among other indexes and tables, the bibliography.
In Office 2010, all these options are found under References - Bibliography.
Or how about my favorite, changing page orientation. In Open Office, it's under Formant - Page - Page. Why is such a common function as changing page orientation, among other things like page dimensions and margins hidden so well?
I already told you that while I can customize the ribbon, it requires precognition that I need to customize the menu.
Again, how is that different compared to the old menu. It's a provable fact that more options are deeper in the old menu system. Given this, how is it less likely you'll need to search for a feature in the old menu system? You make no sense.
I think 200 million people buying it is, especially since the next best option, OpenOffice/LibreOffice is free. Especially since we're talking about productivity software. Let's say Word 2010 took 3 minutes to print a character you type to the screen. Do you think 200 million people would buy it? No, of course not, because it makes them less productive. This is the degree to which slashdot would have you believe the ribbon makes you less productive. Yet it's running at tens if not hundreds of thousands of companies around the world. Why isn't global productivity grinding to a halt?
Office 2010 sold licenses because Office XP went EoL.
Support for Office 2003 continues until 2014 however. Also why wouldn't they switch to Open Office if it's that much better?
Sit someone down who's been using office since the 90's with Office 2010 while still being saddled with Windows XP (extremely common in the corporate environment even today). Tell them to find Save As.
You mean under file->save as? Same place it's been since the 90s? Or alt+f+a, same shortcut it's always been? What exactly is the problem here?
but now that journals outside of physics have moved away from LaTeX it's pretty much dead for us.
As the parent said, most computer science related journals and conferences still use LaTeX, especially IEEE conferences.
The biggest benefit of LaTeX I've found is that if your paper gets rejected, you can turn around and download the style from another conference or journal and with very few modifications have a new submission ready. Otherwise, the development time in my experience is very similar, and I'd consider myself highly proficient in both LaTeX and Word. That said, I usually write in LaTeX because version control is more straightforward.
Isn't that the problem with any interface? Due to limited screen space, they can't make every option available in a menu system or the ribbon system (which is really still a hierarchical menu, just a different layout). So they have to make obvious the most common features, and hide some of the more esoteric ones. The benefit of the ribbon is that 90% of the functionality of Word is available in 3 clicks or less. With the old system, many more options were hidden in multiple layers deep. So much so, that people started requesting functionality to be added that has been there the whole time, because they couldn't find those features in the menu layout.
At any rate, if you really need to, you can customize the ribbon layout in Office 2010 in pretty much any way you choose.
Yes, everyone hates the ribbon interface! That's why Office 2010 has sold over 200 million copies. You'd think if it was so universally reviled and killed productivity (as slashdot claims with no proof), people would have stopped buying Office at 2007. Fact is the ribbon was designed from user feedback, and while slashdot trolls can cite himself and his 5 immediate co-workers as people who do not like the ribbon, Microsoft can point to thousands of data points and usage metrics to explain why the Ribbon is in fact a better UI.
I don't have to like the job you're doing. Difference is I'll say "not interested" and move on with my life instead of harassing you and generally being a dick. Same reason I use alternate forms of travel like train or bus if I can avoid flying.
Sexually harassing the TSA is not the correct response. It is the same thing they are doing, and I therefore have just as much contempt for you as I do for them.
I've got a cousin who loves to mess with people who mess with him.
Wait... people doing their job trying to feed their families are now "messing" with you? Your cousin sounds like a colossal dick who goes out of his way to be nasty and rude to people. Don't frame his juvenile antics as somehow clever or inspired. He's just your run of the mill asshole, and you probably are too for looking up to him.
The quote is from Wikipedia (with those two links as citations) which of course makes it 100% factual! The citations for that section basically all reference one another... there's a big discussion on the talk page about how inaccurate and misleading it is.
If it takes an average consumer more than 10 seconds to figure out how to text their friends, import and manage contacts, and play music and videos then they won't want the phone
This is setup in a matter of literally seconds on windows phone. Sign in with a live ID, and it links to facebook, twitter, and it automatically sets up your phone with email, calendar, all your contacts, your xbox account, and a 25GB skydrive account.
Microsoft's grandiose plans to have desktop access (for a fee), Cloud (for a fee), Office (for a fee), WM-Player may be free but DRM will lock out any non Microsoft approved media, etc
Desktop access is free, cloud access is free (25gb storage for free), office access is free (office online is free, office comes with windows phone, office will come with Windows 8 RT), and WMP/Zune plays pretty much any common codec.... not sure what you're trying to say but you seem pretty uninformed or intentionally are spreading FUD.
Nope, take a look at this video, detailing global android activations over time. You'll notice that with the G1, activation growth is pretty linear and overall unimpressive in magnitutde, but begin to pick up by the end of 2009. However, when the Droid launches in the United States, there is a dramatic spike in activations which is echoed around the world as it is subsequently launched in other countries. This was definitely word of mouth marketing, as people in America lached onto the Motorola Droid, due to it being the only viable competitor to the iPhone, people around the world took to it as well. It was all about being on the right carrier on the right time. This notion of "openness" is completely lost on the vast majority of consumers, and is not an issue for the the buying population, as evidenced by the astounding success of the closed iOS ecosystem.
Nokia had two good options and a third very bad one:
1) Fend for themseslves against Samsung and HTC with Android
2) Partner with Microsoft against Samsung and HTC with Windows Phone
3 (the bad one): Try to create a 5th ecosystem and still fend for themselves
For a company on the brink, billions of support and backing from Microsoft is pretty hard to turn down.
Heh... I was just looking through some of the names on that list. I didn't realize some phones had such ridiculous names as "Galaxy S II Epic Touch 4G" "DROID RAZR MAXX 4G"
New iPhones and Androids are becoming nothing more than a bump in specs. It's been that way for a good while now, and the only people who seem to really care are the internet forum dwellers. The general population just wants a phone that do not buy phones the way we do. A girl I know got an android phone for the sole reason that it was the only pink smartphone. It broke recently and she got an iPhone because she didn't like Android. Were there a pink Windows phone in the store, she probably would have bought that. While you and others on these forums are pragmatic in your cellphone choice, considering specs, features, ecosystem, etc. most people out there are completely arbitrary, and completely swayed by emotions and marketing. Microsoft doesn't need to compete with the iPhone 5 and Galaxy III... they just need to compete with their marketing.
No, the biggest reason for Android's success was the Motorola Droid being launched on Verizon, the nation's largest cellular carrier, as an alternative to the iPhone. People were *clamouring* for an iPhone, but couldn't get it because itw as AT&T exclusive. The G1 on T-Mobile was an absolute dog, and Android floundered for a couple years until it caught on with Verizon. It was a gigantic void waiting to be filled, and Android was lucky enough to fill it first. It had *nothing* to do with Google's brand, and everything to do with it being the only viable smartphone on the nation's largest carrier.
In other news the Lumia 900 is topping the charts at Amazon, selling out there, and selling out at AT&T stores and online. AT&T recently stated that the launch is exceeding expectations, which couldn't have been very low given the giant marketing blitz behind the device. Further, TFA states: "Rival operator T-Mobile says the Lumia 710 is among its most popular phones."
So where's the disconnect? Right here: "Microsoft's software worked nicely with PCs and allowed you 'to do tons of cool things,' but few customers knew this." So wait, you're telling me that people don't know about Windows Phone, so they don't ask for it, so it won't sell, so you don't want to sell it? It's circular. How about you tell people about it, maybe they'll like it, and then maybe it will sell, then maybe you'll want to sell more? People buy what they know, and as AT&T and T-Mobile are showing, if you advertise a device, it will sell. This doesn't say anything about the relative merits of the operating system, unlike what this summary is trying to imply.
True. The same thing was said about Office when they introduced the Ribbon. The consensus on Slashdot was, and still is, that the ribbon is a productivity nightmare, and no one would upgrade from Office 2003. In fact it was seen as the dawn of new age for Open Office, as Slashdot assured that users would switch in droves when confronted with the new UI. Of course at launch, Office 2007 sold twice as many copies as 2003, and sales continue strongly with Office 2010 selling over 200 million licenses to date. In matters concerning how the general public will receive a product, I tend to bet against Slashot's collective opinion (see also: iPod, iPhone, iPad, Linux).
Slashdot Mirror
Ten times less features? Looking at a default install of Open Office Writer, I see 46 features within 1 click. In Word I see 42 features within 1 click. Features within 2 clicks are much higher in Word than Open Office Writer.
You're trying to claim that Microsoft has a monopoly in office suites? Sure they have a majority marketshare but a monopoly? With options like LibreOffice, Google Docs out there which are free and incredibly easy to switch to, where exactly is the monopoly?
The examples you are giving is that LibreOffice doesn't place things where Office does. That isn't the same as self-discovery.
Sure it is. Let's say I open Word and I want to add a biliography. After scanning the tabs, the obvious one is References, with second place being Insert. Then all the options are right there in front of me. In Writer, Insert is the most obvious menu, but there is no option for bibliography. There's an option for indexes and tables, and even in there the option to add a bibliography is missing, but hidden under the nondescriptive "Index and Tables."
The old menu requires you to carefully search through each flyout in each menuto find something. In the ribbon, those flyouts are all open at once, so what is an O(n^2) search in the old menu, is a O(n) search in the ribbon. Due to this design, the chances are the function you want is only 2 clicks away at most, and if you don't know where it is finding it should take less time, and at the very most you'll relegate yourself to the help box much faster if something is not present on the ribbon menu.
As for customizing the ribbon, how do I know that I need to customize the ribbon before I know that it doesn't have the option I want. I first have to search all the ribbons then help or whatever to find my option. At that point I can decide if the feature is important enough to customize the ribbon. That's as silly as asking me do I know where I misplaced my keys. If I knew where I misplaced my keys, they wouldn't be misplaced. Is that any clearer?
You still haven't answered how this is different than any other interface? How do I know I have to customize the menu interface before searching through the menu interface. Your complaint is not specific to the ribbon at all.
Hard to say that for productivity software. Slashdot contends that the ribbon decreases productivity. If this were true, why would people even buy Office 2010 after experiencing a productivity decrease with 2007? If this were true, why hasn't the marketshare of Open Office increased dramatically? If 200 million people are out there using this software and it's slowing them down so much, where is the global outrage outside of Slashdot?
There is no File menu
Thanks for commenting on a product you haven't used. You have not used Office 2010, because if you had, you would see the big colored tab with the word "File" in it.
here are a few reasons to dislike the ribbon. If you're on a small screen, it uses a lot more real estate than the menus. They don't have the shortcut keys next to all of the options, which means that you don't learn the shortcuts for commonly used things as easily as you do with the menu. Finally, unlike the old toolbars, the ribbon does not allow you to put commonly used but unrelated things on the screen at the same time.
The AC mentioned these points but I want to reiterate them so more can see, since you're modded +4 insightful yet you're completely uniformed:
1) I've done the calculation: From the top of the screen to the top of the page, the default ribbon layout in Word uses THE SAME vertical space than the default menu+toolbars in open office writer. Further, you can minimize the ribbon by double clicking on it. Can't do that with toolbars. Further still, the ribbon scales better to the screen size; whereas the ribbon adjusts the size of buttons, keeping them visible on the screen, the menu system will hide them in a drop down list.
2) There are keyboard shortcuts to every feature in the ribbon. Press Alt and follow the letters. This is more discoverable and provides more functionality.
3) You can put any shortcuts you want in the quick access toolbar at the top of the screen, or you're free to customize the tabs in any way you wish including adding your own tabs.
Like I said, your anecdotes are meaningless in the context of 200 million copies sold. I know just as many people who like it as you know who don't.
What you're missing is that before the ribbon it was easier to self discover the menu option that was needed and it wasn't buried 3 menus deep.
It was easy to self discover, how? By doing an exhaustive search on the menus? Because they're not that intuitive. For example, in OO if I want to edit a bibliography, I have to go to Tools-Bibliography Database. If I want to add the bibliography to the document I have to go to Insert - Indexes and Tables - Bibliography Entry, where I can either add an item to the document's biblography database (which is separate from the bibliography database in the tools menu for some reason) or I can add a specific entry. Then to insert the actualy bib to the document you go to the oh so intuitive Insert - Indexes and Tables - Insert - Indexes and Tables, where you can insert among other indexes and tables, the bibliography.
In Office 2010, all these options are found under References - Bibliography.
Or how about my favorite, changing page orientation. In Open Office, it's under Formant - Page - Page. Why is such a common function as changing page orientation, among other things like page dimensions and margins hidden so well?
I already told you that while I can customize the ribbon, it requires precognition that I need to customize the menu.
Again, how is that different compared to the old menu. It's a provable fact that more options are deeper in the old menu system. Given this, how is it less likely you'll need to search for a feature in the old menu system? You make no sense.
I think 200 million people buying it is, especially since the next best option, OpenOffice/LibreOffice is free. Especially since we're talking about productivity software. Let's say Word 2010 took 3 minutes to print a character you type to the screen. Do you think 200 million people would buy it? No, of course not, because it makes them less productive. This is the degree to which slashdot would have you believe the ribbon makes you less productive. Yet it's running at tens if not hundreds of thousands of companies around the world. Why isn't global productivity grinding to a halt?
Office 2010 sold licenses because Office XP went EoL.
Support for Office 2003 continues until 2014 however. Also why wouldn't they switch to Open Office if it's that much better?
Sit someone down who's been using office since the 90's with Office 2010 while still being saddled with Windows XP (extremely common in the corporate environment even today). Tell them to find Save As.
You mean under file->save as? Same place it's been since the 90s? Or alt+f+a, same shortcut it's always been? What exactly is the problem here?
but now that journals outside of physics have moved away from LaTeX it's pretty much dead for us.
As the parent said, most computer science related journals and conferences still use LaTeX, especially IEEE conferences.
The biggest benefit of LaTeX I've found is that if your paper gets rejected, you can turn around and download the style from another conference or journal and with very few modifications have a new submission ready. Otherwise, the development time in my experience is very similar, and I'd consider myself highly proficient in both LaTeX and Word. That said, I usually write in LaTeX because version control is more straightforward.
Isn't that the problem with any interface? Due to limited screen space, they can't make every option available in a menu system or the ribbon system (which is really still a hierarchical menu, just a different layout). So they have to make obvious the most common features, and hide some of the more esoteric ones. The benefit of the ribbon is that 90% of the functionality of Word is available in 3 clicks or less. With the old system, many more options were hidden in multiple layers deep. So much so, that people started requesting functionality to be added that has been there the whole time, because they couldn't find those features in the menu layout.
At any rate, if you really need to, you can customize the ribbon layout in Office 2010 in pretty much any way you choose.
Yes, everyone hates the ribbon interface! That's why Office 2010 has sold over 200 million copies. You'd think if it was so universally reviled and killed productivity (as slashdot claims with no proof), people would have stopped buying Office at 2007. Fact is the ribbon was designed from user feedback, and while slashdot trolls can cite himself and his 5 immediate co-workers as people who do not like the ribbon, Microsoft can point to thousands of data points and usage metrics to explain why the Ribbon is in fact a better UI.
I don't have to like the job you're doing. Difference is I'll say "not interested" and move on with my life instead of harassing you and generally being a dick. Same reason I use alternate forms of travel like train or bus if I can avoid flying.
Sexually harassing the TSA is not the correct response. It is the same thing they are doing, and I therefore have just as much contempt for you as I do for them.
I've got a cousin who loves to mess with people who mess with him.
Wait... people doing their job trying to feed their families are now "messing" with you? Your cousin sounds like a colossal dick who goes out of his way to be nasty and rude to people. Don't frame his juvenile antics as somehow clever or inspired. He's just your run of the mill asshole, and you probably are too for looking up to him.
The quote is from Wikipedia (with those two links as citations) which of course makes it 100% factual! The citations for that section basically all reference one another... there's a big discussion on the talk page about how inaccurate and misleading it is.
If it takes an average consumer more than 10 seconds to figure out how to text their friends, import and manage contacts, and play music and videos then they won't want the phone
This is setup in a matter of literally seconds on windows phone. Sign in with a live ID, and it links to facebook, twitter, and it automatically sets up your phone with email, calendar, all your contacts, your xbox account, and a 25GB skydrive account.
Microsoft's grandiose plans to have desktop access (for a fee), Cloud (for a fee), Office (for a fee), WM-Player may be free but DRM will lock out any non Microsoft approved media, etc
Desktop access is free, cloud access is free (25gb storage for free), office access is free (office online is free, office comes with windows phone, office will come with Windows 8 RT), and WMP/Zune plays pretty much any common codec.... not sure what you're trying to say but you seem pretty uninformed or intentionally are spreading FUD.
Nope, take a look at this video, detailing global android activations over time. You'll notice that with the G1, activation growth is pretty linear and overall unimpressive in magnitutde, but begin to pick up by the end of 2009. However, when the Droid launches in the United States, there is a dramatic spike in activations which is echoed around the world as it is subsequently launched in other countries. This was definitely word of mouth marketing, as people in America lached onto the Motorola Droid, due to it being the only viable competitor to the iPhone, people around the world took to it as well. It was all about being on the right carrier on the right time. This notion of "openness" is completely lost on the vast majority of consumers, and is not an issue for the the buying population, as evidenced by the astounding success of the closed iOS ecosystem.
1) Fend for themseslves against Samsung and HTC with Android
2) Partner with Microsoft against Samsung and HTC with Windows Phone
3 (the bad one): Try to create a 5th ecosystem and still fend for themselves
For a company on the brink, billions of support and backing from Microsoft is pretty hard to turn down.
Heh... I was just looking through some of the names on that list. I didn't realize some phones had such ridiculous names as "Galaxy S II Epic Touch 4G" "DROID RAZR MAXX 4G"
New iPhones and Androids are becoming nothing more than a bump in specs. It's been that way for a good while now, and the only people who seem to really care are the internet forum dwellers. The general population just wants a phone that do not buy phones the way we do. A girl I know got an android phone for the sole reason that it was the only pink smartphone. It broke recently and she got an iPhone because she didn't like Android. Were there a pink Windows phone in the store, she probably would have bought that. While you and others on these forums are pragmatic in your cellphone choice, considering specs, features, ecosystem, etc. most people out there are completely arbitrary, and completely swayed by emotions and marketing. Microsoft doesn't need to compete with the iPhone 5 and Galaxy III... they just need to compete with their marketing.
No, the biggest reason for Android's success was the Motorola Droid being launched on Verizon, the nation's largest cellular carrier, as an alternative to the iPhone. People were *clamouring* for an iPhone, but couldn't get it because itw as AT&T exclusive. The G1 on T-Mobile was an absolute dog, and Android floundered for a couple years until it caught on with Verizon. It was a gigantic void waiting to be filled, and Android was lucky enough to fill it first. It had *nothing* to do with Google's brand, and everything to do with it being the only viable smartphone on the nation's largest carrier.
In other news the Lumia 900 is topping the charts at Amazon, selling out there, and selling out at AT&T stores and online. AT&T recently stated that the launch is exceeding expectations, which couldn't have been very low given the giant marketing blitz behind the device. Further, TFA states: "Rival operator T-Mobile says the Lumia 710 is among its most popular phones."
So where's the disconnect? Right here: "Microsoft's software worked nicely with PCs and allowed you 'to do tons of cool things,' but few customers knew this." So wait, you're telling me that people don't know about Windows Phone, so they don't ask for it, so it won't sell, so you don't want to sell it? It's circular. How about you tell people about it, maybe they'll like it, and then maybe it will sell, then maybe you'll want to sell more? People buy what they know, and as AT&T and T-Mobile are showing, if you advertise a device, it will sell. This doesn't say anything about the relative merits of the operating system, unlike what this summary is trying to imply.
The sales figures will tell in the end, neh?
True. The same thing was said about Office when they introduced the Ribbon. The consensus on Slashdot was, and still is, that the ribbon is a productivity nightmare, and no one would upgrade from Office 2003. In fact it was seen as the dawn of new age for Open Office, as Slashdot assured that users would switch in droves when confronted with the new UI. Of course at launch, Office 2007 sold twice as many copies as 2003, and sales continue strongly with Office 2010 selling over 200 million licenses to date. In matters concerning how the general public will receive a product, I tend to bet against Slashot's collective opinion (see also: iPod, iPhone, iPad, Linux).