[Grey Wolf]

I don't want this to be a MS-bashing discussion, but rather an examination of the possible flaws in Microsoft's office software and operating system divisions. Namely, whether the lack of innovation from generation to generation is ultimately hurting sales. Admittedly, a certain quantity of sales are basically ensured through copies of Windows and Office being bundled with (or purchased for) new computers. However, among the enthusiast and corporate markets, this lack of innovation could ultimately harm sales.  For example, many companies are still running Windows 2000, which is almost two generations back. Admittedly many of the security bugs from W2k were patched in XP, but many more were also introduced. Also, the primary programs within Office have shown very little in the way of advancement since Office 2000. This leads to the question:
Does Microsoft need to adjust its fundamental strategy to continue to see the profits they have been accustomed to?

[Ulala]

Wha?! But the new Windows and Office programs have new splash screens!! New!!! Innovative!!!!1!!1one1eleven

[Grey Wolf]

I was really hoping for more constructive analyses than that.

[Ulala]

Sorry. Here's a more explanitory opinion. Take Word for example. Microsoft Word 2000 and Word 2003 seem to be exactly the same program (as far as I can tell) save for maybe a couple unnecessary features, new icons, and a new splash screen. For the demographic that can see through that kind of thing, Microsoft won't be selling as many products. I personally I'm fine with my Microsoft Office 2000 (as opposed to 2003). However, the demographic of generally older people that don't know what they're spending their money on when they walk into Office Max and say "I need a computer", well sales will probably stay about the same. Are these thoughts acceptable?

*equips flame resistant suit*

[Grey Wolf]

That's much better. Paragraph-long posts with actual content are far better than sentence length posts with vague pretensions of content for the purpose of this thread.

[Ulala]

Oh. Well I figured people would catch that whole paragraph with my single sentence post. I guess I figured wrong.

[SadisticSid]

No, I think MS is doing fine despite this. Why? Because nothing else exists to compete. OpenOffice is really just a cut-down version of Microsoft's product, and Linux as a productivity tool is pretty much a joke anyway. What else is there for Windows that's better than Office? Nothing. There was Corel WordPerfect and Lotus/IBM SmartSuite a while ago but they've since disappeared from the mainstream. Until another, better product comes along and starts to take MS' sales away, there is absolutely no need to innovate. Also, remember that most corporate outfits rely on Microsoft to bring out patches and provide support; once they stop supporting Office 2000, say, most people will upgrade to the newest version.

[vyper]

[q]OpenOffice is really just a cut-down version of Microsoft's product[/q]

How exactly? The main issues I have are asthetic which rather proves GW's point that the key "advancements" are looks.

[Scuddie]

Ease of use, for one.  I find Office XP to be far more user friendly in getting exactly what I want.  OpenOffice is kind of a pain to use.  Granted it may have more useful features once you learn to use it inside out, but few people know how to do that.  Also, Aesthetics may be considered superficial, but IMO, it is valid in this case.  I don't use Office XP because it looks attractive, but because OpenOffice looks so unattractive.

[aldo_14]

IMO MS' strategy is/will be crumbling under the law of diminishing returns.   I think they'll move into service licensing rather than sales; namely subscription fees in exchange for patches and incremental updates.

Certainly where I'm working (sort of), it's been a complete pain in the arse getting windows machines installed; we've had no end of problems with XP activation.  Truth be told, the only reason I've not switched my machine over to Linux is that the app I'm working on uses a bunch of licensed/plugged in windows-specific stuff (mostly for encoding), and until I fix that somehow, it's not possible to develop on linux.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by SadisticSid
Because nothing else exists to compete.

Yeah, that's part of their business practice. Kill the competition however they can so they don't have to think about making a good product. I like how they change their (proprietary, non-open) format every version too.

Have you all seen Office 12 btw? It looks horrendously annoying to use. http://pdc.xbetas.com/?page=o12preview1

[Scuddie]

As much as I like MS for 2000/2003, I am beginning to really dislike the overwhelming bloatware of these newer MS products.  Vista requires 512 megs O' ram and a 3D accelerator for ****s sake.  Whatever happened to simplicity?  Office XP is my favorite because it is the latest version that isn't bloated all to hell.  After 2003, there had better be an office oriented OS, else I'm done with MS.  WinXP and Vista must burn in hell!

[WMCoolmon]

Yes.

Actually, I think everybody's strategy is flawed.

Nobody except Apple has really been deploying any kind of new, intuitive, and creative interfaces. But somehow, system requirements are skyrocketing.

Why isn't it possible to have a minimalistic Windows for people that runs on a 500 mhz machine, with word processing and spreadsheet abilities, and is very responsive?

And takes up 50-100 MB?

Ooh, isn't that scary. But I can probably compile a custom Linux kernel for my system that takes up about 20-30 MB. So Microsoft should be able to pack all the necessary drivers and **** into an equal-sized package, at least. Hell, the source code's sitting online.

20 MB onto that should be plenty for an OS with a word processor, plus a web browser and e-mail client.

Now hey, you might say, what about the thousands of printer models?

Well, you keep those all on the CD or online and only install them as needed.

Personally I'm surprised the Linux community hasn't done this.

[Bobboau]

yeah, well I think we've firmly established that the linux comunity has no desire to put forth any effort in getting people into there OS.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Win2K isn't two generations back. The only reason it as a very stable, feature filled OS is not as well supported as XP is that MS forced the market.
Had I a choice I'd still be running it instead of my stripped version of XP.

One of the US cities got some wrath from MS due to its move to make all of the civil services use an open file format and thus an office suite that can write it. They wanted something that was 'future proof' and could be transparently used between departments; XML. (I read this on slashdot but I can't seem to find the article at the mo.).

If MS is to have a stable future in office software they'll have to embrace the open format or die. Of course this forces them to make better software or lose sales. It's all good from the point of view of the user.
[/color]

[Kosh]

The desktop I left behind in America is 3 years old now. It still runs my pirated copies of Windows 2000 and Office 2000. Why did I not bother to upgrade it to XP and Office 2003? Because they are practically the same thing. It isn't worth it for me to pirate them (which is sad if you think about it).

[dizzy]

Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, well I think we've firmly established that the linux comunity has no desire to put forth any effort in getting people into there OS.

It is very wrong to think of the "linux community" as some central brain taking coherent decisions and having some coherent vision of the future.

The "linux community" is just like any other big community, people from all backgrounds are "into it" although there is a strong development trait to it (ie in general people that do know how to write a program are more atracted to it than others, however, this does not mean that only professional programmers are into it, I know physics people that study physics but know to develop programs to help in their studies). As such, there is no coherent common vision on the actions of the community. Being made by various people, it is driven by various needs of those people as such it has many developments and behaivours that put into the light of a "common vision" seem bad and confusing.

The comparation I usually like to make against the community is that of a complex ecosystem. Open source software in general is much like natural evolution and genetics. It usually evolves, not "designed" as for commercial software. The natural selection happens automatically because of the openess of the access to it's software, thus there is a fierce competition just like in the real life.

Trying to see the community in this light explains a lot of what happens in there. It also means that unless there is some strong reason there won't be any work against making a perfect Windows replacement. These reasons can be: people willing to sacrifice their time and energy for doing it for fun, or doing it because they need it or people being payed by someone to do it (like with the commercial distributions). But it is clear that people that "need" to have a perfect Windows replacement, because _they_ have to code it, it also means they are not computer newbies at all and as such they automatically tend to not cover the things that computer newbies need (very logical). So only the other 2 options remain, ie for fun and/or profit

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I'd have to agree. It's like saying why haven't the SCP team programmed every single feature I want into FS2?

That being said, I myself think linux is very easy to get in to and I like to know how things work, thus the learning requirement of the more advanced distros is a positive and not a negative to me.


Anyhow, on topic: Openoffice and Abiword are both excellent examples of feature rich, open source office tools (Abiword is a wordprocessor only, Openoffice is an entire office suite) that could easily replace MS office tools. Any one that hasn't yet looked into them might be pleasantly surprised especially given their cost.
[/color]

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Win2K isn't two generations back. The only reason it as a very stable, feature filled OS is not as well supported as XP is that MS forced the market.
Had I a choice I'd still be running it instead of my stripped version of XP.

One of the US cities got some wrath from MS due to its move to make all of the civil services use an open file format and thus an office suite that can write it. They wanted something that was 'future proof' and could be transparently used between departments; XML. (I read this on slashdot but I can't seem to find the article at the mo.).

If MS is to have a stable future in office software they'll have to embrace the open format or die. Of course this forces them to make better software or lose sales. It's all good from the point of view of the user.
[/color]

It was the entire state of Massachusetts.

And no matter that it's not really outdated, it's still two generations back as soon as Vista comes out in the spring.

[Descenterace]

Commonwealth. Not State.