I bought a newspaper last Sunday. The bird cages needed to be cleaned.
Just for old time's sake, I pulled out the want-ads, intending to look in a couple categories... I couldn't believe that those four skimpy pages were the entire Sunday want-ads. It used to be an entire separate section of the newspaper. One of the categories I was looking for didn't even exist.
I'm a little surprised that newspapers manage to stay in business.
> This time the phone rep told me there was a retroactive change in policy for office 2003 that happened the first of this year, you are now only allowed one installation per key and zero reinstalls. Including for HD failures, as was the case here (our previous base system image didn't include office, as not every PC needed it)
That borders on criminal.
It sounds like you should make disk images of the remaining systems that are at risk, so you could restore to new hard drives as necessary.
I've been using Office 2000 on Windows 7 for years. (Except for (shudder) Frontpage, of course.) I know that eventually M$ will make a version of the OS on which 2000 doesn't run. Then, I'll stay on the last version of the OS on which it does run for as long as I can, and by then maybe the tools I need will be ported to Android and I can be done with Windows. But buying new versions just because Ballmer thinks I should is just flat out not acceptable.
I wondered how activation was supposed to work when the product is deprecated. Thanks for that info. It's remarkable that you can buy a product, and find that the product you've purchased can't be re-installed (because it will no longer activate) even though it is still useful to you. It's almost like you have to pirate the product to use the instance you have purchased.
So "what's meant by 'exodus' in this context" is apparently the exact opposite of the meaning of the word "exodus"?
Exodus means that a large number of people are leaving something. If a large number of people were leaving the Windows platform, that would be an exodus. After a new release, it's proper to expect an exodus from the previous version to the new one. What's happening here is the opposite of that. You might call it an "anti-exodus". We've seen this before, when XP was so entrenched that Vista died.
I agree, and "exodus" is, I think, the wrong word to use. But it was in the original article, and I was trying to speculate on what was meant. In this case, I think it meant getting off the "buy whatever Microsoft craps out as soon as the sphincter snaps shut" bandwagon.
I don't agree that Vista died because XP became entrenched; at best that was a minor factor. Vista died because (a) XP was Good Enough; people could stop worrying about managing the OS and concentrate on getting stuff done, and (b) Vista sucked. Or rather, there was no compelling reason to migrate to Vista, and a lot of compelling reasons not to. Similar to Win8 now.
I really think the days of worrying what new OS versions are on the horizon are basically over. We're high enough up the curve in reliability and feature set that whatever we're running is likely to meet our needs. (Talking about PCs here -- one's mileage will vary on other kinds of appliances.) Win8 has three major hills to climb -- (1) the parts that are better aren't enough better, (2) the parts that suck, sucketh mightily, (3) the users are tired of "upgrade hell" and starting to revolt against the concept of "gotta have that next new release". I don't see 8 getting much traction except in hardware sales where the user doesn't understand that they may have an alternative.
Parenthetically, I think Microsoft needs to stop trying to invent new GUIs for the desktop and concentrate instead on reliability, security, virtualization, and interoperability. But that's just me.
I use edlin and 7-bit ascii graphics characters to edit my resumes you insensitive clod... requires a dos emulator to run the bat file that cats the text - if running on a modern system, you have to load up at least 256 copies of moslow for it not to scroll by at light-speed.
...wow... I'd forgotten I'd even known that. I remember moslow. Used it on old Wing Commander games when the hardware got too fast.
But seriously, I still use VI daily, and it's four years older than edlin. So if you want me offa your lawn, you have to do better than that.:-)
And somewhere online I still have my original IT professional resume, in.fm format. Those were the days... Mind you, not *good* days, but days...
i was one of those who hated hated hated moving from office 2000 to office 2007.. and you know ? office 2007 really is a lot better, on average; sure there are places it is worse, but on average, it is better
And you know? It doesn't really matter. At work, where the company provides my tools, I use Office 2007. It's ok... shrug... it's just another version of Office. At home, I use the last version that I purchased, (Office 2000) and will continue to use that until it doesn't work anymore, for a reasonable definition of "work". I feel no inclination at all to spend $322 (amazon) to be able to say "Ooooh. Ribbons!".
Mind you, there's basic functionality, and then there's categories where I actually need closer-to-cutting-edge stuff, and it's important to know the difference. I'm primarily a photographer, so am inclined to keep moderately up to date on the Adobe suite. (Although even there, I'm currently a major release behind.) Office, is like, pad and paper. Yes, I use it almost every day. No, I don't need the latest and greatest. Not even a little bit. I might feel differently were I a technical writer by profession. Just as, professional coders probably need a close-to-recent version of code development tools, web designers need relatively recent versions of web development tools, and so forth. I'd hazard a guess that most people who are not tech writers don't really need to drop three-plus benjamins every time a new version of Office comes out.
At this date I only send documents that are.docx or.xlsx MS OpenXML. Good luck with that and hope you are not sending out resumes with that format. A hint. that table that looks fine will look like crap and be misformatted in my Word 2010 viewer. I will throw it out and go to another candidate.
Apparently you've never heard of the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack. Google it; it's a free download.
A hint: Don't send out resumes in docx format unless you're trying to get a job as an MCSE. Use pdf.
Great article. I know people will disagree with some of the analysis, but personally, I think you called it.
But this.....
> The secondary reason is that the enterprise market has made adamantly clear that they absolutely will not deploy Windows 8 until the start button and boot to desktop interface issues are resolved. Microsoft saw enterprises stick it to them with XP for a decade and realizes that enterprise is not about to put up with another Vista experience. Microsoft has to make these changes, or they risk losing their distribution chain to their competition.
....worries me. Because if Microsoft sees this as an Enterprise-only issue, they may restore the old interface to *only* Enterprise copies of Win8. And yes, this could be done, relatively simply, by making the feature hinge on the node belonging to an Active Directory domain.
Why would they do it this way? Because there is less lost face in accommodating the demands of the Enterprise sector whilst continuing to double down on the new GUI with the Consumer sector. (I could see Ballmer needing to do this. And throwing chairs until it's done.) The official argument could be "Although our Enterprise customers may have legacy needs, it's important that our non-Enterprise customers maintain a consistent interface across multiple types of devices to avoid user confusion."
As a consumer, I wouldn't pick up 8.1 until I was certain the desktop/start option was back to stay for all users.
The real problem is that the innovator who really stole all their ideas from other people, has failed to realize that their own User Interface has become a mature technology, as familiar to most people as "gas on the right, brake on the left" in a car.
Haven't thought about that, but you're right. And when you change gas and brake controls to gestures on the glass, you see a lot of people frantically cleaning their windshield as they head towards the cliff. "Not dome light! Brake! Brake!!!"
I think what is meant by "exodus" in this context is failure to jump on the next version as soon as its available. I think "continued exodus" might mean that of the last six major releases, at least three have been overlooked in significant numbers. That's a lot of money that Microsoft did not receive. (What's wrong with you people??)
> I can only speak for myself (and my secret army of genetically engineered lemurs, but that's not important now), but I don't care who someone in a restaurant is speaking to, as long as they can maintain what is known in kindergarten as an "inside voice."
I think that's my new favorite quote for this week. Yes, the conversation is not as important as the volume, and dining next to two people shouting at each other can be even more obnoxious than one person shouting into the phone.
(Flash back to the Carter administration, my mother visits me in Silicon Valley, at dinner she starts berating me because I'm still renting and haven't bought a house yet, I say that 13.5 % prime is not a good time to buy a house, she gets louder and louder, I'm looking around me and trying to calm her down, she finally starts shrieking at me "You're STUPID! You're just STUPID!". People around us get up and leave. That scene has stayed with me the rest of my life, and if my dinner companion starts to get loud, I immediately disengage, pay and leave. Girlfriends who wanted an emotional breakup over drinks in a nice place tended to be frustrated by my lack of cooperation. If you're going to yell at me, fine, but it will not be here. Apparently this makes me an asshole.)
Sidebar: I think this thing -- shouting into a phone -- is partially an age thing, (from a generation who grew up when you had to speak loudly into a communication device) and will eventually disappear. Except for hipsters. My observation is that they will continue shouting into their trendy earpiece because it draws attention to how trendy their trendy earpiece is, not because of some racial memory of a time when phones needed volume. But hipsters would find a way to be annoying even in environments where cell phones were not allowed. Or perhaps because of same.
Why don't they just put a damn payphone in each place and leave us in peace to eat or be entertained instead of being interrupted by some idiot yammering on and on with his/her stupid little talking device?
?? As opposed to yammering on and on with his/her dinner companion?
Isn't it sad that the first thought I have after, "those poor people, I hope they're OK!", is, " Oh, great, *now* what civil rights is the US government going to shit all over?"
We talked about this years ago. It's the phenomenon of "good enough". Back when personal computers were relatively new, when we were on the steep end of the curve in relation to what most people wanted to use computers for, we were all slavering for the next incremental improvement.
But somewhere along the line the computer manufacturers got ahead of the curve (for most people). (There will always be users out in the ozone, and that's a good thing because it helps drive technology.) The people who needed to run an office suite and browse the web and maybe play a few non-cutting-edge games were increasingly satisfied with what they had. There was no real reason to upgrade. Maybe a new hard drive once in awhile, but other than that, it takes major breakage to consider replacing a computer. (Case in point, my current PC has a scarred up old case from the turn of the century, an early Intel Core 2 processor, and a relatively new motherboard, only because daughter's pet ferret dumped a glass of water on the previous one.)
What's interesting to me is that three years ago those of us who were saying two year old technology is good enough were challenged by slightly larger numbers of users who wanted the latest and greatest. And now, the "good enough" numbers appear to exceed the "latest and greatest" numbers.
Also interesting that this applies to PCs much more than to Macs. Apple has done a great job of continuing the "incremental update" mindset well past the point of, well, sanity. Sorry, did I say that out loud? I meant, um, beyond the point where any reasonable person would say "this is good enough". Sorry, replace "any reasonable person" with "many people".
...which explains the failures in flush mounted ceiling cans, but doesn't explain the failures in bare bulb fixtures, nor does it explain why some of the longest lived bulbs are the ones outside in completely enclosed fixtures. (Which is counter-intuitive, as CFLs aren't supposed to do well outside.)
Slashdot Mirror
I bought a newspaper last Sunday. The bird cages needed to be cleaned.
Just for old time's sake, I pulled out the want-ads, intending to look in a couple categories... I couldn't believe that those four skimpy pages were the entire Sunday want-ads. It used to be an entire separate section of the newspaper. One of the categories I was looking for didn't even exist.
I'm a little surprised that newspapers manage to stay in business.
> This time the phone rep told me there was a retroactive change in policy for office 2003 that happened the first of this year, you are now only allowed one installation per key and zero reinstalls. Including for HD failures, as was the case here (our previous base system image didn't include office, as not every PC needed it)
That borders on criminal.
It sounds like you should make disk images of the remaining systems that are at risk, so you could restore to new hard drives as necessary.
Um, actually it's, "something is different, and it sucks". Different and useable is fine.
> 2015 - Microsoft re-introduces Metro, is told they are copying, and doing so poorly. and it's true
FTFY.
I've been using Office 2000 on Windows 7 for years. (Except for (shudder) Frontpage, of course.) I know that eventually M$ will make a version of the OS on which 2000 doesn't run. Then, I'll stay on the last version of the OS on which it does run for as long as I can, and by then maybe the tools I need will be ported to Android and I can be done with Windows. But buying new versions just because Ballmer thinks I should is just flat out not acceptable.
I wondered how activation was supposed to work when the product is deprecated. Thanks for that info. It's remarkable that you can buy a product, and find that the product you've purchased can't be re-installed (because it will no longer activate) even though it is still useful to you. It's almost like you have to pirate the product to use the instance you have purchased.
This.
So "what's meant by 'exodus' in this context" is apparently the exact opposite of the meaning of the word "exodus"?
Exodus means that a large number of people are leaving something. If a large number of people were leaving the Windows platform, that would be an exodus. After a new release, it's proper to expect an exodus from the previous version to the new one. What's happening here is the opposite of that. You might call it an "anti-exodus". We've seen this before, when XP was so entrenched that Vista died.
I agree, and "exodus" is, I think, the wrong word to use. But it was in the original article, and I was trying to speculate on what was meant. In this case, I think it meant getting off the "buy whatever Microsoft craps out as soon as the sphincter snaps shut" bandwagon.
I don't agree that Vista died because XP became entrenched; at best that was a minor factor. Vista died because (a) XP was Good Enough; people could stop worrying about managing the OS and concentrate on getting stuff done, and (b) Vista sucked. Or rather, there was no compelling reason to migrate to Vista, and a lot of compelling reasons not to. Similar to Win8 now.
I really think the days of worrying what new OS versions are on the horizon are basically over. We're high enough up the curve in reliability and feature set that whatever we're running is likely to meet our needs. (Talking about PCs here -- one's mileage will vary on other kinds of appliances.) Win8 has three major hills to climb -- (1) the parts that are better aren't enough better, (2) the parts that suck, sucketh mightily, (3) the users are tired of "upgrade hell" and starting to revolt against the concept of "gotta have that next new release". I don't see 8 getting much traction except in hardware sales where the user doesn't understand that they may have an alternative.
Parenthetically, I think Microsoft needs to stop trying to invent new GUIs for the desktop and concentrate instead on reliability, security, virtualization, and interoperability. But that's just me.
I use edlin and 7-bit ascii graphics characters to edit my resumes you insensitive clod...
requires a dos emulator to run the bat file that cats the text - if running on a modern system, you have to load up at least 256 copies of moslow
for it not to scroll by at light-speed.
But seriously, I still use VI daily, and it's four years older than edlin. So if you want me offa your lawn, you have to do better than that. :-)
And somewhere online I still have my original IT professional resume, in .fm format. Those were the days... Mind you, not *good* days, but days...
There will always be exceptions to the rule.
i was one of those who hated hated hated moving from office 2000 to office 2007..
and you know ?
office 2007 really is a lot better, on average; sure there are places it is worse, but on average, it is better
And you know? It doesn't really matter. At work, where the company provides my tools, I use Office 2007. It's ok... shrug... it's just another version of Office. At home, I use the last version that I purchased, (Office 2000) and will continue to use that until it doesn't work anymore, for a reasonable definition of "work". I feel no inclination at all to spend $322 (amazon) to be able to say "Ooooh. Ribbons!".
Mind you, there's basic functionality, and then there's categories where I actually need closer-to-cutting-edge stuff, and it's important to know the difference. I'm primarily a photographer, so am inclined to keep moderately up to date on the Adobe suite. (Although even there, I'm currently a major release behind.) Office, is like, pad and paper. Yes, I use it almost every day. No, I don't need the latest and greatest. Not even a little bit. I might feel differently were I a technical writer by profession. Just as, professional coders probably need a close-to-recent version of code development tools, web designers need relatively recent versions of web development tools, and so forth. I'd hazard a guess that most people who are not tech writers don't really need to drop three-plus benjamins every time a new version of Office comes out.
At this date I only send documents that are .docx or .xlsx MS OpenXML. Good luck with that and hope you are not sending out resumes with that format. A hint. that table that looks fine will look like crap and be misformatted in my Word 2010 viewer. I will throw it out and go to another candidate.
Apparently you've never heard of the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack. Google it; it's a free download.
A hint: Don't send out resumes in docx format unless you're trying to get a job as an MCSE. Use pdf.
Great article. I know people will disagree with some of the analysis, but personally, I think you called it.
But this.....
> The secondary reason is that the enterprise market has made adamantly clear that they absolutely will not deploy Windows 8 until the start button and boot to desktop interface issues are resolved. Microsoft saw enterprises stick it to them with XP for a decade and realizes that enterprise is not about to put up with another Vista experience. Microsoft has to make these changes, or they risk losing their distribution chain to their competition.
Why would they do it this way? Because there is less lost face in accommodating the demands of the Enterprise sector whilst continuing to double down on the new GUI with the Consumer sector. (I could see Ballmer needing to do this. And throwing chairs until it's done.) The official argument could be "Although our Enterprise customers may have legacy needs, it's important that our non-Enterprise customers maintain a consistent interface across multiple types of devices to avoid user confusion."
As a consumer, I wouldn't pick up 8.1 until I was certain the desktop/start option was back to stay for all users.
The real problem is that the innovator who really stole all their ideas from other people, has failed to realize that their own User Interface has become a mature technology, as familiar to most people as "gas on the right, brake on the left" in a car.
Haven't thought about that, but you're right. And when you change gas and brake controls to gestures on the glass, you see a lot of people frantically cleaning their windshield as they head towards the cliff. "Not dome light! Brake! Brake!!!"
Dunno about you, but I'm in no hurry to update Office, so whether the latest version forces the new gui is not important.
Incidentally, I confirmed last weekend that Office 2000 works on Windows 8. I'm good.
I think what is meant by "exodus" in this context is failure to jump on the next version as soon as its available. I think "continued exodus" might mean that of the last six major releases, at least three have been overlooked in significant numbers. That's a lot of money that Microsoft did not receive. (What's wrong with you people??)
Especially when the water is foul.
> will Microsoft's updates be dynamic enough to stop the current Windows exodus?
> But I'd hope that [a bowel movement] isn't something you'd do in the middle of a busy restaurant
Most restaurants, anyway.
> I can only speak for myself (and my secret army of genetically engineered lemurs, but that's not important now), but I don't care who someone in a restaurant is speaking to, as long as they can maintain what is known in kindergarten as an "inside voice."
I think that's my new favorite quote for this week. Yes, the conversation is not as important as the volume, and dining next to two people shouting at each other can be even more obnoxious than one person shouting into the phone.
(Flash back to the Carter administration, my mother visits me in Silicon Valley, at dinner she starts berating me because I'm still renting and haven't bought a house yet, I say that 13.5 % prime is not a good time to buy a house, she gets louder and louder, I'm looking around me and trying to calm her down, she finally starts shrieking at me "You're STUPID! You're just STUPID!". People around us get up and leave. That scene has stayed with me the rest of my life, and if my dinner companion starts to get loud, I immediately disengage, pay and leave. Girlfriends who wanted an emotional breakup over drinks in a nice place tended to be frustrated by my lack of cooperation. If you're going to yell at me, fine, but it will not be here. Apparently this makes me an asshole.)
Sidebar: I think this thing -- shouting into a phone -- is partially an age thing, (from a generation who grew up when you had to speak loudly into a communication device) and will eventually disappear. Except for hipsters. My observation is that they will continue shouting into their trendy earpiece because it draws attention to how trendy their trendy earpiece is, not because of some racial memory of a time when phones needed volume. But hipsters would find a way to be annoying even in environments where cell phones were not allowed. Or perhaps because of same.
Why don't they just put a damn payphone in each place and leave us in peace to eat or be entertained instead of being interrupted by some idiot yammering on and on with his/her stupid little talking device?
?? As opposed to yammering on and on with his/her dinner companion?
Isn't it sad that the first thought I have after, "those poor people, I hope they're OK!", is, " Oh, great, *now* what civil rights is the US government going to shit all over?"
I dunno, recent experience?
Posint anonymously to save what little reputation I have....
What does this have to do with news for nerds?.
Bombs are created by terrorists, terrorism is funded by internet piracy, internet piracy is big news here on /.
Um, what? Terrorism is funded by giving away free stuff?
We talked about this years ago. It's the phenomenon of "good enough". Back when personal computers were relatively new, when we were on the steep end of the curve in relation to what most people wanted to use computers for, we were all slavering for the next incremental improvement.
But somewhere along the line the computer manufacturers got ahead of the curve (for most people). (There will always be users out in the ozone, and that's a good thing because it helps drive technology.) The people who needed to run an office suite and browse the web and maybe play a few non-cutting-edge games were increasingly satisfied with what they had. There was no real reason to upgrade. Maybe a new hard drive once in awhile, but other than that, it takes major breakage to consider replacing a computer. (Case in point, my current PC has a scarred up old case from the turn of the century, an early Intel Core 2 processor, and a relatively new motherboard, only because daughter's pet ferret dumped a glass of water on the previous one.)
What's interesting to me is that three years ago those of us who were saying two year old technology is good enough were challenged by slightly larger numbers of users who wanted the latest and greatest. And now, the "good enough" numbers appear to exceed the "latest and greatest" numbers.
Also interesting that this applies to PCs much more than to Macs. Apple has done a great job of continuing the "incremental update" mindset well past the point of, well, sanity. Sorry, did I say that out loud? I meant, um, beyond the point where any reasonable person would say "this is good enough". Sorry, replace "any reasonable person" with "many people".