Sarchasm? :) I really wish they'd goto '07 at least.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Katherine Moss <katherine.m...@gordon.edu>wrote: > 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> 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] *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 <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 <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> > 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**** > -- 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
