 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Office 2010 Beta downloadable by MSDN, Technet subscribers today | |
|
||
| Time: 13:48 EST/18:48 GMT | News Source: | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
As widely expected, Microsoft has begun rolling out the public beta of its Office 2010 suite this week.
|
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 13 of 13 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at Monday, November 16, 2009 04:08:20 PM |
| In spite of wide acceptance, Office 2007 was a dog (speed-wise) compared to prior versions. I look forward to seeing how Office 2010 performs compared to Office 2003 and Office XP. If my small business customers have licenses for older versions of Office, and 2010 turns out to be another bloated construct, than I will recommend that they reuse the older (always retail box) licenses on new replacement machines. No cheating. Just legal reuse after the old machine is wiped. |
| #2 By 13997 (98.246.101.184) at Monday, November 16, 2009 05:17:53 PM |
|
#1 - Seriously? Our team found 2007 to be faster in almost every test possible. Word and Outlook 2007 is extremely faster than prior versions, especialy when Outlook is dealing with several GB PST files. Word load times nad basic formatting and/or find/replace scripts are significantly faster than prior versions.
Our numbers compare 2007 to 2003 and XP editions, maybe Office 97 was faster, but that is a bit old to ask customers to flip back to. (Another nice feature of 2007 is the minimize Ribbon feature for netbook users, were you can have a very clean UI without having to flip to full screen mode.) Anyway, wondering what you find so slow, the only things we have notes that are slower are very rare senerios and they are only slower in terms of 5-10% at most. (Thought I should note, some of the 'automated testing' software that uses the older script engine to benchmark 2007 will show it to be slower, but when using the regular script engine, it shows it to be faster. Be careful using some of the automated 'Office' benchmarking software is highly unreliable. Our techs used native custom scripts and measured things like load times, document open times, print times, formatting times, save times, and mail receiving with Spam and category filtering and other things like smart searches in Outlook - that appearred in 2003 first.) This post was edited by thenetavenger on Monday, November 16, 2009 at 17:22. |
| #3 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at Monday, November 16, 2009 10:44:59 PM |
| #2. Yes, seriously. Slower in all respects. Under Windows 7 the performance hit is only in the range you mentioned. That is still slower. but not painfully so. |
| #4 By 13997 (98.246.101.184) at Tuesday, November 17, 2009 05:39:00 AM |
|
#3 Ok, guess we will have to disagree...
I truly won't throw out all the data or fire my guys in the tech lab that run these numbers and tests just because YOU think they are wrong. PS A side note 2010 is a bit slower so far in initial 'user' testing, so don't get your hopes up of seeing Office97 performance anytime soon. But then again, Word and Outlook still launch in under 1 second, but I'm guessing that whole .28 second difference will not be acceptable to you for added features. This post was edited by thenetavenger on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 05:42. |
| #5 By 12071 (124.168.167.122) at Tuesday, November 17, 2009 07:04:31 AM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, November 17, 2009 08:24:01 AM |
| #5: Give it up. He's another Ketchum. Nobody ever had a problem with MS or its software, and if they did, they're either idiots, liars or part of the world-wide anti-Microsoft conspiracy. |
| #7 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:35:27 AM |
|
#4: "Word and Outlook still launch in under 1 second"
Could you please elaborate what do you mean with this statement? OK 2007 usable in 1 second after clicking the icon? |
| #8 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Tuesday, November 17, 2009 03:27:40 PM |
|
I don't think avenger intended to offend. I think that for guys running shops that live in the science and data day in and day out, that speculation and a lot of the commentary as shared, that is not based on the same, gets them.
I mean, take Latch as an example, he says the most intentionally unkind things, in the most unkind ways possible, demonstrates no real technical understanding at all, and expects all others to simply lap it up. Whether Office 2007 was a "dog" depended upon what one was doing at the time. If the user was only doing the same things they were doing in Office 2003/2002XP then it was about the same. If however one were leveraging all the new smart art and other very rich tools and used a lot of them, O2K7 would push older hardware to the limit. ( do mean a lot of objects, too ). On any "Core" based system it was no issue, but I could def see and feel the pressure on older hardware. So it is relative to what one was running and what one was doing. I think as we do, netavenger lives in the data and lets it speak to and for him and not saying that Bobs and others do not - just sharing how it is understandable that he would come across at least as strongly as Latch, or Chris. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, November 18, 2009 08:11:26 AM |
|
#8: I mean, take Latch as an example, he says the most intentionally unkind things...
Microsoft sucks. See? I did it again! in the most unkind ways possible... Microsoft is like a big bag of grundles that you felch after getting a blumpkin. demonstrates no real technical understanding at all... This from a man that blames an obvious USB port driver problem on the hardware despite all evidence to the contrary. and expects all others to simply lap it up. I'm not the one who uses this place as his pulpit, with his like-minded followers attacking any blasphemers. This post was edited by Latch on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 09:28. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Wednesday, November 18, 2009 09:28:04 AM |
|
#9, Aside from the pointless snark, the main problem I have with your posts is that you seem to fail to realize how most people in business and the channel view Microsoft.
We don't count on them to solve our challenges. We count on them to make platforms and tools we can use to create and sustain solutions. You confuse advocacy for customers and the work we do for them with advocacy for the maker of the tools. You ask me which tools I like and I'll say "Craftsman" for many uses and "Snap On" for others. You don't ask or focus on what people do with the tools - and we do. It is not about the technologies at all, it is about what we do with them that matters and to that end, we have found that Microsoft makes the best platforms and tools upon which we can create and sustain solutions that work for our customers. As capabilities advance (to federated (clouds) services+software), we are confident that Microsoft will continue to support those of us building solutions. I am equally confident that you will add nothing of substantive value to the discussion around these efforts and that we'll have to counter the snark and obfuscation you and others like you intentionally present. |
| #11 By 241766 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, November 18, 2009 09:43:43 AM |
| #4: How about posting the raw data, and the specs of the machines used for the tests, and let us determine for ourselves what the numbers mean? |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:32:29 AM |
|
#10: Aside from the pointless snark, the main problem I have with your posts is that you seem to fail to realize how most people in business and the channel view Microsoft.
No, I understand it. I just don't agree with it. I am well aware that most people don't care. As long as they can play PokerStars, WoW or update their Facebook, they don't care if MS boils kittens for lunch. You confuse advocacy for customers and the work we do for them with advocacy for the maker of the tools. No, but at the same time I'm not falling for your ruse of trying to convince me that your unceasing support for Microsoft is really support for the customer. You ask me which tools I like and I'll say "Craftsman" for many uses and "Snap On" for others. Except in your case, the answer is always Microsoft. Always. It is not about the technologies at all, it is about what we do with them that matters and to that end, we have found that Microsoft makes the best platforms and tools upon which we can create and sustain solutions that work for our customers. And like I've said before (which you've denied, of course) is that when you're making money off the back of the beast, it's best not to look at the fangs and the bloody trail behind it. I'm obviously not as selectively pragmatic as you are. The ends do not always justify the means. I prefer a little social responsibility instead of corporate sociopathy. I am equally confident that you will add nothing of substantive value to the discussion around these efforts and that we'll have to counter the snark and obfuscation you and others like you intentionally present. That's a subjective interpretation, isn't it? You certainly don't see value in my opinions because they run contrary to your own. If the AW redesign ever gets off the ground, you'll be able to shield your mind from any dissenting chains of thought, and won't that be a wonderful day for you. |
