Say that again? There are still people using Office ’03? We have to get them out of the dark ages and get them up to supported Office levels!
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of mike smith Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:05 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99) THis is just for Office-in-the-cloud, right? There's a lot of customers out there that use and love Office 2003. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Katherine Moss <katherine.m...@gordon.edu<mailto:katherine.m...@gordon.edu>> wrote: I mean the new office model using what’s it called, Napa or something like that? That doesn’t use .net at all, and they are calling the existing development model legacy already. So Microsoft seems to prefer that folks now do all of their development for office via HTML instead of via .net. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] On Behalf Of Ian Thomas Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:20 AM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99) This must be the most divergent tangent from the original topic, but here goes: It is not related to HTML support (would that have changed, I wonder?) but my guess is that it is because the legacy 3rd-party add-ins for Office would be largely VBA add-ins or perhaps C++ COM add ins (not ever written as .NET with the aid of the PIAs for the various Office releases). Meski’s short response was sufficient explanation. It is hard to move forward when you are forced to support quite old legacy applications. If some small business or individual is used to running (for example) an Outlook add-in from 4Team, which may have been updated to support Outlook 97 through to Outlook 2013 – but not the 64-bit versions of Office - then what would you expect Microsoft (or software publisher X – eg, Apple) to do? In my view, it would be helpful to suggest that the 32-bit version may be preferable, if that is what Microsoft recommends somewhere. Those with more technical advice or knowledge would make a judgement whether the 64-bit version of say Excel might be better suited for their use - perhaps to support huge spreadsheets? But many users would be pleased enough with 32-bit versions. I’m not sure what you mean by stupid HTML crap. Do you mean XML-based object model in the .docx, .xlsx (etc) file formats? Personally, I wouldn’t complain about Microsoft’s ,NET support for Office development, in the 2009 to 1013 time frame. I think it’s pretty good. ________________________________ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Katherine Moss Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:40 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: Is Surface really failing? Oh LOL. I never thought of that. I mean, Microsoft has just ruined >NET Framework support in Office by touting their stupid HTML crap, so it’s almost like it matters not anymore. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of mike smith Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:13 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Is Surface really failing? Because there are a lot of legacy addons for Office that haven't been compiled for x64 Office. They will not work together (inProc calls) On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Katherine Moss <katherine.m...@gordon.edu<mailto:katherine.m...@gordon.edu>> wrote: Oh funny. But in light of what somebody said about Office, why do you recommend 32 bit office on a 64 bit platform? I don’t get that. And before today, I had never heard of it before. I’m in the market for Office 2013, so which to get and why? I’d rather go for the 64 bit version, but if that’s going to cause headaches for me later, then oh well. -- Meski http://courteous.ly/aAOZcv "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
