Office 2007 Delayed....

/cynic mode, all IMO
I'm so cynical about software updates it isn't funny. Especially anything from MS. They break more than they resolve. Their focus groups must be all stoned. WM5 is a joke nobody asked for. Everything from Redmond is half-baked and as soon as it ships MS spokesman say "Just wait till the next version!, it's so exciting and resolves every issue."

I know it's all strictly to generate revenue. MS is out of business if they can't convince businesses to shell out for upgrades. Ms has no other product lines to generate enough revenue to continue to exist.

3hgz machines and I'm still stuck typing on a 100 year old invention to get anything done? Bah. It's like modern airliners still flying with fabric covered wings.

/cynic off

sorry to reply to something you put in parentheses
so, actually i like the idea of a 32 bit version... this leaves more time for us users to adjust/upgrade and to software developers to do the versions for the final 64 bit OS'es... all IMO

to wally. same thing. compatibility. so it isn't easy to make an all new all perfect OS...
the existence of WM5 is quite contradictory with this though, many WM2003 software doesn't run or not properly.

Edited by cmonex 2006-03-25 5:25 PM

On second thought, I've said my piece and bashed MS enough for one day.

32-bit just holds back the adoption process. Apple can see it, Microsoft saw it with x86 transit mile stones even with Windows 95. Pandering to 32-bit just lets them flood the market with cheap as chips low end 32-bit systems which will last no more than 18 months before people realise they actually needed a 64-bit proces... oops, let the cat out of the bag.

It's much the same with Analogue TV's and FM radios. Why is it that I can buy a high end Plasma/LCD TV with only an analogue tuner? and why is is that a 50p FM radio tuner is a selling point? and why for that matter are both these examples in the majority? but I digress...

nah, i like it. i don't want to buy a 64 bit cpu and a whole new system just because i'm forced to do so. no, i like MS's attitude to this, they let me have more time and adjusting to do it.

Yet you're willing to be forced to upgrade the software part to Longhorn, which will require a new graphics card for your system, and if I'm not mistaken probably a new motherboard... oops, that's new CPU territory
Interesting.

nope, i was talking in general.

i won't upgrade to longhorn if not absolutely necessary.

and here's where my reasoning becomes relevant, if MS is delaying the necessity to adopt, then i can have more time before i have to upgrade.

Edited by cmonex 2006-03-26 2:31 PM

Hm, in general. thats kind of a wide field you are hooking into.
However, you are not FORCED to go through all this stuff. As HPC users in general, we are already used to living with the limitation of a DEAD OS, and still we all made the choice to use them and live with the limitations and issues of these devices.
In general, you can still use windows 3.11 for all your work, h*ll, even DOS is still sufficient for doing it all. You just end up using Office 4.0 (office 89 or something).

However, as new technologies arise, new features and stuff, which require faster hardware become availiable, and thus you have a choice to stick to what you are used to, or go on with the bandwagon of the future.

Some people like to have the latest models of cars, while other people would rather drive a vintage classic. Everyone has a choice.

lol.




yes, this is what i've been talking about all the time.

My 2 cents again. Eye candy does not an improvement make for an OS or is a justifiable corporate expense. I understand the 64 bit argument but devoting more OS resouces to tax the cpu negates much of the migration to 64 bit.

Edited by wallythacker 2006-03-26 6:10 PM

Wallythacker,

Well and truely agreed. Saying that most of it is GPU work in this day and age. Point well taken though.

but then again, with the eyecandy in vista being GPU work, this basically means that 3d-capable hardware is mandatory. In addition, it seems like the financial focus for PC's is more aimed towards gaming. If not, why would you need a system with a 64mb dedicated graphics card to run business applications. Does this mean that Vista will mainly be a gaming/multimedia OS?

I think not, since all the extra crap that usually is running after a standard install of any windows version (post v3.11 that is) is seriously limitting the performance of the system. Take XP for example. a default XP install usually takes up about 180 MB of memory after a boot. This does not include any software that has been installed afterwards. if you mess around with the system a bit, you can actually tweak it to boot into a fully functional system in under 80mb in use. a saving of 100mb of memory useage.
With all the additional stuff in Vista, from what I understand, has the mediacenter stuff build-in to every single one of the 7 different versions, I wonder how much of your computers resources are used after boot time.

anyone here have a decent gaming rig and have a dualboot of xp and a beta of vista running to run a few benches?