Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #1366 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-07-18 10:48 -0400 |
| Last post | 2012-07-24 18:24 +0100 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 66 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
[OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-18 10:48 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-18 18:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-18 20:58 +0100
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-18 20:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Theo Tress" <rbk@online.de> - 2012-07-19 10:03 +0200
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-18 19:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-19 08:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-19 08:23 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-20 03:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-20 04:28 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 14:12 +0100
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-20 08:29 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-20 19:20 +0000
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Norm Fowler <NormF4@spoof.com> - 2012-07-20 16:33 -0700
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-25 01:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-25 08:32 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-25 16:11 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-27 19:03 -0600
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-19 08:46 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Vacuum Sealed <noodnutt@gmail.com> - 2012-07-20 00:47 +1000
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Jeff Johnson" <i.get@enough.spam> - 2012-07-19 14:10 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-19 18:43 -0600
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Helmut_Meukel <Helmut_Meukel@bn-hof.invalid> - 2012-07-19 10:56 +0200
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Thorsten Albers" <gudea@gmx.de> - 2012-07-21 12:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> - 2012-07-24 10:07 +0200
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-24 10:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 10:58 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-24 10:15 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 11:36 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 12:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 17:50 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 14:38 -0700
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 20:54 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 16:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 07:00 +0100
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 10:28 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 15:03 +0100
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 11:17 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 18:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 14:26 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-27 18:55 -0600
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-27 21:24 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-27 21:26 -0600
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-28 09:46 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-28 13:43 -0600
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-28 13:46 -0600
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-28 17:13 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-27 22:36 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 22:07 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 18:21 -0700
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 10:33 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-25 10:00 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-25 20:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 06:52 +0100
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-25 10:31 -0700
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 20:19 +0100
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-25 12:41 -0700
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-24 19:27 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 20:51 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-24 22:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 11:15 -0300
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 16:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> - 2012-07-24 16:12 +0200
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Henning" <computer_hero@coldmail.com> - 2012-07-24 17:42 +0200
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> - 2012-07-24 09:16 -0700
Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-24 18:24 +0100
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 11:15 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <juov1k$sfb$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1435 |
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> escribió en el mensaje news:junjvh$14t$1@dont-email.me... Who Moved My Cheese? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Moved_My_Cheese%3F It is a book that was famaous some years ago. It talked about how the things change and you need to adapt. My reflection is that what is happening to MS is not entirely because of their faults, but because some reality changed: the software "is already done" (and sold). They must had see that several years ago perheps. But the limits of silicon integration and impossibility of higher frequency processors were "discovered" just with the Prescott? in 2004-2005. Anyway, even if there were no limits, Windows and Office were already working right for most of the users and it didn't need an upgrade really. They reacted perhaps somewhat desperately, and that is what damaged people most. But what is happening is not just because of their faults.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <juncd6$ret$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1428 |
Mayayana expressed precisely : >>> So they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel every two years to sell new >>> licenses, and just focus on what the people really need. >> >> Actually, that's a damned insightful way to look at it. A subscription >> model /could/ shift their focus away from breaking stuff, towards >> making damned sure it never broke. Hmmmm... >> > > On the other hand, isn't that essentially what software > assurance is? If they weren't hoping to make more money > by renting software than by selling it, they wouldn't > do it. The main reason SaaS got started in the first place > is because popular software was mature and relatively > cheap, so people diodn't need to keep buying new versions. > That's not a very auspicious start for the idea of rented > software. :) I think the main reason was that people didn't want to get authorizations to upgrade, and instead wanted to be given ongoing purchasing authority. Similar, I suppose, but not really the same since they were still selling upgrades. -- .NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 16:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <500ead31$0$6468$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #1418 |
"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : jum9m5$n03$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribió en el mensaje > news:julpc7$u87$1@dont-email.me... >> "Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> wrote in message >> news:500e57b6$0$6451$426a74cc@news.free.fr... > >> They've been wanting to do that for years! I remember posting loads of >> stuff on the newsgroup years ago complaining about Micro$oft's obvious >> wish to move into the "rented operating system" > > That perhaps could not be too bad idea after all. > > We are facing many problems because MS is looking for a way to survive. To > do that, they make new OS versions that carry a lot of problems, all > because they are focused in selling something new. > > It could be much better if they were focused in fixing what they have > already done, and making improvements and enhancements to what it's > already working. > > But, how can they get paid? A two years subscription period wouldn't be > too bad idea after all. Office 365 E2 offers email, instant messaging and access to Office Web Apps for the princely sum of £10.50 per month. My experience of a 3 month trial of this was that there was part (or all) of it offline nearly every day. After 2 years you have paid £252... Now, where could you get email, messaging and online documents from elsewhere cheaper than that??? (this is a facetious comment by the way)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Henning" <computer_hero@coldmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 17:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jumfp1$3bt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1420 |
"Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> skrev i meddelandet news:500ead31$0$6468$426a74cc@news.free.fr... > > > "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : > jum9m5$n03$1@speranza.aioe.org... >> >> "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribió en el mensaje >> news:julpc7$u87$1@dont-email.me... >>> "Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:500e57b6$0$6451$426a74cc@news.free.fr... >> >>> They've been wanting to do that for years! I remember posting loads of >>> stuff on the newsgroup years ago complaining about Micro$oft's obvious >>> wish to move into the "rented operating system" >> >> That perhaps could not be too bad idea after all. >> >> We are facing many problems because MS is looking for a way to survive. >> To do that, they make new OS versions that carry a lot of problems, all >> because they are focused in selling something new. >> >> It could be much better if they were focused in fixing what they have >> already done, and making improvements and enhancements to what it's >> already working. >> >> But, how can they get paid? A two years subscription period wouldn't be >> too bad idea after all. > > Office 365 E2 offers email, instant messaging and access to Office Web > Apps for the princely sum of £10.50 per month. > My experience of a 3 month trial of this was that there was part (or all) > of it offline nearly every day. > After 2 years you have paid £252... Now, where could you get email, > messaging and online documents from elsewhere cheaper than that??? (this > is a facetious comment by the way) > > You just forgot that we still need an ISP wich always? offers mail as part of the fee. I, for one, will not miss anything in Office 2012, 365 or whatever... still occasionally using Office 2003. For newer docx I use OO. /Henning
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d64e4540-94ac-4ff5-a434-71becdb5ae5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1366 |
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:48:03 AM UTC-5, Farnsworth wrote: > Run Hamster run! > > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229276/Windows_XP_and_Vista_No_Office_2013_for_you > > By Gregg Keizer > July 17, 2012 03:58 PM ET > > Computerworld - Microsoft confirmed yesterday that the new Office 2013 will > not run on older PCs powered by Windows XP or Vista. I don't know why so many people are finding this to be a surprise... Micro$oft already announced a few years ago that they're no longer going to be supporting XP... it goes without saying that this means anything they create now, they will not be considering backward compatibility with XP (or 2K, NT, ME, 98, etc).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 18:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jumlop$bfj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1423 |
"ReverendFuzzy" <google@msbministries.org> wrote in message
news:d64e4540-94ac-4ff5-a434-71becdb5ae5c@googlegroups.com...
> I don't know why so many people are finding this to be a surprise...
> Micro$oft already announced a few years ago that they're no longer
> going to be supporting XP... it goes without saying that this means
> anything they create now, they will not be considering backward
> compatibility with XP (or 2K, NT, ME, 98, etc).
Read the label. The OP said:
"Office 2013 will not run on older PCs
powered by Windows XP or Vista"
Note the "or Vista" bit.
Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
csiph-web