Re: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99)
You'll likely find the reason they arent supporting the migration forward has to do with the whole RT reset matrix. In that if your target market for the near future is both RT Pro experiences having the old dragging along for the ride is still in the same problem space as it is with deskstop. The Win8 team made a concious decision to put a line in the sand with its release by basically jettison the entire .NET current in way of the new and whilst Surface Pro still allows you to sneak your WPF/SL/Other solutions into the tablet space it's pretty much and will always be a case of you making your own way through that technical challenge alone. With Win8 came new namespaces on a lot of existing IP :) so with that all roads point to new namespaces or bust. --- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.riagenic.com On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Ian Thomas il.tho...@iinet.net.au wrote: 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] *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.
RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99)
If you don’t like the ribbon UI (the vast majority of people I know, techie or otherwise, don’t) the only real option is sticking with Office 2003. If you do anything that involves add-ins or custom macros, Office has been a relative pain in the ass to work with since 2007. From more of a ‘power user’ perspective, if you prefer to work with virtualised environments a complete and snappy XP + Office 2003 will cost you 2-3Gb at most and can be stripped down to under 700Mb total without too much work, while a basic Win8 install with Office 2013 will set you back roughly 10Gb. If you use Powerpoint and Access extensively your mileage may vary but other than for a few minor niceties in Outlook I can’t think of a single ‘killer feature’ added to the core Office programs (ie Word, Excel and Outlook) between Office 2003 and Office 2013 which even remotely compels me to upgrade if the licenses weren’t included anyway with my MSDN subscription (maybe faster large file handling in 64 bit versions?). The only significant reason that I upgrade is OneNote. Other than for that I’d be perfectly happy sticking with 2003, ‘supported’ or not (and when’s the last time Microsoft consumer-level support provided anything of value anyway?) Speaking solely from a user perspective, it’s not that dissimilar to the Win8 situation. Why expect people to re-learn what they already know how to do more efficiently for the sole sake of ‘keeping up’? Where’s the benefit to the user? *disclaimer – if not for multi-core CPUs, 4Gb RAM and most hardware vendors not maintaining (or releasing at all) relevant XP drivers, I’d also be happy to continue using Windows XP. That apparently makes me a luddite? I just figure if it ain’t broke… From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Katherine Moss Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013 3:52 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99) 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.commailto: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.edumailto: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.commailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.commailto: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.commailto: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
Re: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99)
Sarchasm? :) I really wish they'd goto '07 at least. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Katherine Moss katherine.m...@gordon.eduwrote: 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
Re: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99)
On 13/05/2013 4:38 PM, mike smith meski...@gmail.com wrote: Sarchasm? :) Sarchasm - The abyss created when people are sarcastic?
Re: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99)
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:38 PM, mike smith meski...@gmail.com wrote: Sarchasm? :) I like it. I just walked into a colleague's office, wrote that on the whiteboard and walked out. David Connors da...@connors.com | M +61 417 189 363 Download my v-card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/davidconnors Connect with me on LinkedIn: http://au.linkedin.com/in/davidjohnconnors
RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99)
a) Threaded comments are a killer feature for me, and auto-object spacing in Visio. I guess one person’s killer feature is another person’s ‘meh’. I’m sure that Jensen Harris posted some usage stats from Office 2003 that showed that beyond the first 10 or so features, the next 100 are only used by 1-2% of the population, but different 1%s, so eliminating a feature isn’t really possible b) In terms of surfacing features to the user, the Ribbon is pretty good. Much better and scalable than the toolbars, menus, task panes and all the other stuff that pre-dated it. I’m pretty sure Jensen also had some graphs showing the growth in features (and the concurrent increase in toolbars etc and how unsustainable it was going to be) http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/table-of-contents.aspx makes for fascinating reading (showing the depth of analysis and work that went into rethinking the UI) http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/04/04/568249.aspx feature bloat in Office Cheers Ken From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Nathan Chere Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013 4:20 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99) If you use Powerpoint and Access extensively your mileage may vary but other than for a few minor niceties in Outlook I can’t think of a single ‘killer feature’ added to the core Office programs (ie Word, Excel and Outlook) between Office 2003 and Office 2013 which even remotely compels me to upgrade if the licenses weren’t included anyway with my MSDN subscription (maybe faster large file handling in 64 bit versions?). The only significant reason that I upgrade is OneNote. Other than for that I’d be perfectly happy sticking with 2003, ‘supported’ or not (and when’s the last time Microsoft consumer-level support provided anything of value anyway?) Speaking solely from a user perspective, it’s not that dissimilar to the Win8 situation. Why expect people to re-learn what they already know how to do more efficiently for the sole sake of ‘keeping up’? Where’s the benefit to the user?
RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99)
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/04/07/570798.aspx - the post on the most used commands in Office From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013 5:17 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99) a) Threaded comments are a killer feature for me, and auto-object spacing in Visio. I guess one person’s killer feature is another person’s ‘meh’. I’m sure that Jensen Harris posted some usage stats from Office 2003 that showed that beyond the first 10 or so features, the next 100 are only used by 1-2% of the population, but different 1%s, so eliminating a feature isn’t really possible b) In terms of surfacing features to the user, the Ribbon is pretty good. Much better and scalable than the toolbars, menus, task panes and all the other stuff that pre-dated it. I’m pretty sure Jensen also had some graphs showing the growth in features (and the concurrent increase in toolbars etc and how unsustainable it was going to be) http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/table-of-contents.aspx makes for fascinating reading (showing the depth of analysis and work that went into rethinking the UI) http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/04/04/568249.aspx feature bloat in Office Cheers Ken From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.commailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Nathan Chere Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013 4:20 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99) If you use Powerpoint and Access extensively your mileage may vary but other than for a few minor niceties in Outlook I can’t think of a single ‘killer feature’ added to the core Office programs (ie Word, Excel and Outlook) between Office 2003 and Office 2013 which even remotely compels me to upgrade if the licenses weren’t included anyway with my MSDN subscription (maybe faster large file handling in 64 bit versions?). The only significant reason that I upgrade is OneNote. Other than for that I’d be perfectly happy sticking with 2003, ‘supported’ or not (and when’s the last time Microsoft consumer-level support provided anything of value anyway?) Speaking solely from a user perspective, it’s not that dissimilar to the Win8 situation. Why expect people to re-learn what they already know how to do more efficiently for the sole sake of ‘keeping up’? Where’s the benefit to the user?
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] 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] 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.
RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99)
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.commailto: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.commailto: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.edumailto: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.
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.eduwrote: 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
RE: Is Surface really failing? (tangent # 99)
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.edumailto: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.commailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.edumailto: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
