ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

Careers

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

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

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows 7

IE 8

Hardware

Microsoft Arc Mouse (Red)

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Sponsors: Search Engine Optimisation
exterminator
lawn care
Search Engine Optimisation
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Marketing
PPC Management
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Optimisation
search engine optimisation
Cheap Web Hosting
Webanalyse
online credit card processing
Lenovo Laptops
Text Links
Business Gifts
SEO Services
SEO
Chat
Search Engine Optimization
SEO Consult
Demand Generation Software
Celebrity Autopsies
Network Software

Office 2007: 70 million not served

Time: 02:59 EST/07:59 GMT | News Source: All About Microsoft | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum

It sounded too good to be true. And it turns out it was.

A report last week that Microsoft had sold 70 million copies of Office 2007 since the product was released to manufacturing turned out to be wrong. Officials with Microsoft France allegedly told press last week that Microsoft had sold 70 million copies of Office 2007 since Microsoft made the product available at the end of 2006.

I asked Microsoft whether that number � which seemed awfully high, given that Windows Vista just hit the 60-million-copies-sold mark in July � was accurate. Last week, officials declined to comment on Office 2007 sales. But in responding to IBM�s unveiling of a new Microsoft Office competitor known as IBM Lotus Symphony, Microsoft shed more light on that 70 million figure.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 31
Next Page

The time now is 11:26:28 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By ch (524 Posts) at 9/19/2007 8:55:30 AM

"President Jeff Raikes told attendees that Microsoft had sold 70 million licenses of all versions of Office during fiscal 2007, the Microsoft spokesperson further elaborated this week."

It appears that Office 2007 is experiencing the same sales "success" as Vista.

#2 By bobsireno (1367 Posts) at 9/19/2007 9:16:48 AM

There is no way for us "common folk" to be able to ascertain whether what we read online is fact or misinformation when it is initially available. Something was lost in translation from the nebulous statement that Office sold 70 million licenses in 2007 to the French translation of 70 million licenses of Office 207 were sold.

#3 By TechLarry (3677 Posts) at 9/19/2007 9:22:47 AM

I'm actually considering going back to Office 2003.

First, the new interface might be pretty, but I am NOT more productive with it. That's what matters.

Second, I do not like Outlook 2007. The loss of HTML editing was as bone-headed a move as MS taking Audio out of DirectX 10 in Vista.

The only reason I stick with it is so I can be ready for when it is rolled out company wide in a year or so.

Users are going to have fits with this software and I need to be ready for it.

Otherwise I'd have already removed it.

I'm not saying it's bad. I just flat-out don't like it.

TL

#4 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/19/2007 9:43:46 AM

#3, TL, IE was replaced in OL2K7 as the HTML email rendering engine for security reasons.
It was replaced and a new set of tools supplied to provide the same results, which have proven to be no more difficult to use - just a lot safer.

You know that hardware support for audio was not removed under Vista. EAX support as from Creative was, but STILL made available via Alchemy for legacy games. This happened when Nvidia backed out of its efforts in this regard with Creative and Microsoft. This left a single player, Creative - not fair to other partners; so, new API's were developed and delivered years before Vista shipped. These feature a single interface - making driver development easier than it was before - not to mention fairer to non-Creative manufacturers. BTW, less than 2% of PC users have discrete audio. Not enough to so differently support one manufacturer to the exclusion of all others. "Probably why Nvidia backed out."

If you do go back to O2K3, and you apply SP3 for it, it will modify OL2K3 and render just as OL2K7 does - at least that is what I read in the spec. As I have said, I assess it is of little consequence and back when all this started, I wrote a really long post detailing it and how to style for HTML email in OL2K7.

Finally, there are tools to remove the OL2K7 Ribbon interface and restore it to the more traditional toolbars many are most familiar with. I don't know why one would want to do that, as the ramp to being as productive in OL2K7 and then more productive than ever, is not that steep - just say'in...

*Our press has not served any of us well at all... there have been too many cases of Vista bashing for the sake of bashing alone and little of it is attended by fact.

#5 By Latch (3224 Posts) at 9/19/2007 12:29:30 PM

#4: *Our press has not served any of us well at all... there have been too many cases of Vista bashing for the sake of bashing alone and little of it is attended by fact.

Who is "us" here? Microsoft and its cheerleaders? A great many people don't like Vista and their opinion is as valid as anyone else's. You sound like you're describing the bitchy high-school girl who thinks everyone hates her because they're all jealous. I don't recall anywhere near the same level of disdain for an MS OS ever, and you can't seriously believe that it was all manufactured by the press and FOSS people unless you're just making excuses. That's just about as lame as the fallacy that Windows gets exploited so often because it's so popular and not because it's chock full of holes.

Speaking of Windows holes, there's a new one posted today on Bink. A flaw in MFC42 and MFC71 could allow remote code execution. But don't worry; MS has known about it for 3 months and I'm sure there will be a fix any day/week/month now.

#6 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/19/2007 12:55:16 PM

#5, That is perhaps the weakest, most sophomoric argument you have ever presented here.

MFC42 and MFC71 do not apply to Vista and vulns./exploits have only been tested on XP SP2 [June 21 with a gun to your MS Head date of Sep 5th].

FrSIRT is clear about which operating system is affected, Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and prior
http://www.frsirt.com/english/advisories/2007/3182

Finally, if you really wanted to do even one thing positive here, you would have alerted people using any HP Imaging Web Suite Product [a probable vector for this attack] - you'd have stated as much.

I maintain, our press has not well served "us" as in industry professionals, enthusiasts, and or SOHO and casual existing, or potential users of Windows Vista versions.... and neither have you, for that matter.

I submit that a great many people have sought and gained profit by dispensing inaccurate information about Windows Vista - how does that serve any use of the new OS?

#7 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/19/2007 1:08:18 PM

#5, Also...

I don't recall anywhere near the same level of disdain for an MS OS ever, and you can't seriously believe that it was all manufactured by the press and FOSS people unless you're just making excuses.

Please do not forget, the way the Internet is used and how and what is reported [often as fact], is quite different now - in the days of Windows Vista. "The Democratization of the Web" has been more of a socialization of the same - where a disproportionate share of voice has been given to perhaps those least qualified to exercise it.

#8 By Latch (3224 Posts) at 9/19/2007 1:39:53 PM

#6,7: I never said the bug applied to Vista. I did use the generic 'Windows' but I was not trying to imply that this was a Vista issue. Vista has enough problems of its own.

The Internet has been around for a long time now, and its reach into the home of the average computer user predates Vista by many, many years. What you propose is but one side of the coin. The other side is that it allows people to publish their own experiences and ideas, and share them with everyone online. You have no problem with bloggers when it suits your position. Consumers think Vista is a bust. Manufacturers think it is a bust. On the bright side, it has nowhere to go but up. We will all eventually end up running it, but a lot of us will resist until either Vista significantly improves or we have absolutely no other practical choice. Fortunately, there is a window of 5-10 years before I have to worry about it.

#9 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/19/2007 2:02:53 PM

#8, Latch, it is abundantly clear to all, that by exclusion of key facts you did seek to associate yet another flaw, and as the topic between yourself and myself was about Vista, focus that association on Windows Vista... and in so doing, as abundantly demonstrate the validity of my remarks as at my #6 and 7 above.

#10 By MysticSentinel (563 Posts) at 9/19/2007 2:04:01 PM

#7: "The Democratization of the Web" has been more of a socialization of the same - where a disproportionate share of voice has been given to perhaps those least qualified to exercise it.

On the other hand, there are more independent voices to give opinions based on their own unique perspectives and experiences, giving more balance to the reviews and reports of products. In the "good old days", we had a small cadre of professional reviewers who were slaves to publications with mandates against bad reviews of products made by companies who bought expensive ads in their magazines. So reviews would focus on the positive points, and blatantly skip over any of the negative stuff, or it would simply get edited out of the final copy by editors who didn't want advertisers to get upset and cancel their lucrative advertisement contracts. Is this the "Un-democratized" web you'd like to return to? Where you pretty much had to be a Microsoft fan in order to keep a reviewer job at a major publication? Where the editorial slant was pro advertiser?

Now, we can finally get some more honest reviews by people who use products outside a sterilized test lab environment, using software and hardware that is not carefully prepared and configured by the company who's product is being reviewed. Yes, some reviewers have an axe to grind, and will give a negative review no matter how technically good a product is, but they are balanced by the fanboys who will praise a product, no matter what the faults are. In between are the honest reviews by people like us who do have a clue, and an honest opinion on how a product works, and how it should work.

#11 By MysticSentinel (563 Posts) at 9/19/2007 2:22:36 PM

So I guess this guy, who works as a programmer at Google is one of those "uninformed bloggers" you were talking about?

IE's Memory Leak Fix Greatly Exaggerated

http://blog.grimpoteuthis.org/2007/09/ies-memory-leak-fix-greatly-exaggerated.html

#12 By Latch (3224 Posts) at 9/19/2007 2:33:31 PM

#9: No, I wasn't, as anyone who reads the story can plainly see it only applies to XP. You're just fixating on this to avoid addressing anything else I said.

#13 By MysticSentinel (563 Posts) at 9/19/2007 2:41:18 PM

#9: At the end of Latch's first paragraph, in comment #5, he said "That's just about as lame as the fallacy that Windows gets exploited so often because it's so popular and not because it's chock full of holes."

I was able to discern that he was switching context from "Windows Vista" to "Windows in general" without any difficulties. Given your obvious grasp of the English language, I am surprised you weren't able to parse that sentence and come to the same conclusion, unless you just skimmed it and didn't really read what he was saying.

#14 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/19/2007 3:50:01 PM

See... we have to be really careful here...

Yes, of course, we can all point to the good parts of this and we should - but we should do so with great care.

If we are to fully embrace what Mystic is saying then we have to forget extending journalistic protections to Bloggers.... right? or... hold them to journalistic standards.

One cannot have it both ways.... like no DRM, dang'it, or FREE SW, dang'it! or gosh forbid....
MS give it all to us, or else we'll tattle to the EU.

And #13, No way. No way at all. The association was there and no excuse was offered for a thing by me.... I'll say it again, I submit that a great many people have sought and gained profit by dispensing inaccurate information about Windows Vista - how does that serve any use of the new OS? It is so and it is not helpful. Finally, I read what was written in the greater context of "Latch." That provided the larger meaning I interpreted him to mean - at least it would be consistent with his positions.

#12, you didn't say anything else at all and that, too, was part of my point.

#15 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/19/2007 3:59:45 PM

As regards journalism, how about we work a) to respect it more and b) elevate and enforce standards? There was a time, not too awfully long ago, when there were standards.

Are we now to abandon any standards at all? In favor of what? A mob like approach to all things?

Ok, but ask, "what if we were to do that opposite other institutions we have... like legal, or medical?" Shoot... we'd be hanging people in the streets and hawking snake-oil as though it were real medicine.

It has to be okay to have standards - even if that means that we view blogs with a dash of salt and excuse them from journalistic protections. It does not deny free speech, it just exposes speech to the same standards as are applied throughout the balance of society and it keeps open the doors that allow for protection of journalists.

D'ya'll remember when part of teaching young people about the freedom of speech included when it was best not to speak, or to speak in a way that was intentionally hurtful or false - regardless of some perceived larger good?

#16 By TechLarry (3677 Posts) at 9/20/2007 7:37:17 AM

#4,

I am aware of everything you wrote. Doesn't really change anything :)

TL

#17 By MysticSentinel (563 Posts) at 9/20/2007 7:53:56 AM

#15: So, based on what you stated, we should only listen to the MSM, and no one else? In that case, I will have to ignore you and every opinion you might have, because you are not a professional journalist. And I guess that would apply to this site as well, and all who write for it, until all the contributors can prove that they have graduated from a journalism school, and are professionally hired to work in that capacity?

That sounds a bit extreme to me, but that seems to be what you are advocating. Down with all opinions that are not yours, or don't agree with you, or are not MSM journalists who agree with you.

Personally, I like my information to be well rounded, with opinions from several different perspectives. But, if you don't, that's your option. After all, you live in a mostly free country.

#18 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/20/2007 10:04:49 AM

#17, No and Yes, Mystic.

Look, I'm not calling for anyone to either not write or share opinions and what they experience - no more than I am advocating that one should not read them.

What I am saying is that we have to pay some attention and provide some education to help distinguish between professional journalism [while elevating its standards and station by virtue of its merit] and shared opinion. Similarly, I don't think that the protections afforded speech as journalism should be extended to that which is written or stated that is not journalism. One cannot have it both ways and not dilute the quality of what we refer to as journalism - that mix would not rise to the level that would justify the protections journalism and journalists have historically required.

It does not help to reduce the argument to absolutes, either - as in any interpretation of what I have shared suggesting that only journalists should report, or be heard. That is clearly ridiculous and not what is said. The opposite my views do that all too often - respond so extremely. This site is a perfect example of what does work. People sharing opinions [responsibly] about the reporting centered on technology - with a focus on Windows and other Microsoft software. The site has rules and standards for conduct that apply to all - even I have been censured for the rare use of a bit too much salt in a post - and encouraged, to change it on my own [which I did]. A journalist would never be subject to such direct influence, nor should they be. See the difference?

Now, such protections should not be extended to people like me - or you, or Latch.

#19 By MysticSentinel (563 Posts) at 9/20/2007 10:19:02 AM

#18: So, what gives a blogger who is paid to write articles about given technologies more right to journalistic protections and privileges than one who does the same thing for free? What is your definition of the difference between a blogger who qualifies as a journalist, and thus deserves fifth estate protection, versus a blogger who doesn't? Given that you both state that bloggers are not journalists and thus don't deserve protection, and have quoted them and linked to them when their opinion suits your needs, you must have a criteria for who qualifies and who doesn't. On the same note, do opinion / editorial articles mean more when someone is paid to give the opinion, as opposed to someone doing it for free because they have something to say, but no one will pay them for their opinion?

I am not trying to be obtuse. I just perceive that you have drawn a line in the sand somewhere that divides journalist bloggers from every other blogger, and I am trying to understand where you perceive that line to be.

#20 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/20/2007 10:31:19 AM

#19, Simple.... a journalist who also blogs professionally would be protected.

I and my blog would not be, and should not be. I have no particular journalistic skill and certainly no training. Journalism is not my profession and my blog reflects my opinions and limited experience(s) - they also reflect a lack of journalistic skill, but they may contain some value just the same.

There would be some debate as to what constitutes a freelance journalist, I guess - but like free agency in professional sports, there are rules, or should be, in any case.

What I am saying is that the debate should take place and where appropriate - as where injury exists, it should be formal enough to encourage standards and potentially punishing enough to discourage irresponsibility, slander and libel.

The line is a wide one, and partly why we have this challenge. It needs to be examined and discussed and where common sense fails [e.g., anyone reading a blog like my own would probably rightly conclude that I am no journalist], we have to have some rules.

#21 By MysticSentinel (563 Posts) at 9/20/2007 1:24:56 PM

#20: It sounds like we can at least agree that there needs to be some sort of standards for bloggers, in order for them to claim fifth estate protections, otherwise, they simply fall under freedom of speech laws, and whatever protections are afforded them thereunder. Maybe some sort of professional designation that shows they know and understand what journalistic integrity is, the rules related to factual reporting, slander, libel, and other related legislation and regulations, even if they are not necessarily a professional journalist. Then, only those with the professional designation or certification can claim those fifth estate protections, and they would have something to display publicly that indicates that they are a step above the average Joe Blogger stating a random opinion.

#22 By bluvg (1854 Posts) at 9/20/2007 2:05:11 PM

#20, 21: the issue with that idea would be: who grants the professional designation? How do you keep the process objective and protected from corruption?

#23 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/20/2007 2:55:13 PM

#22, I would not use that as any form of test and don't think it would work, either...

Perhaps it is how a story is generated, [more on that in a sec....] but first we have to be clear about what is protected - first, all speech is and that is not the issue - "sources" and "methods" are what is protected and should remain so. At issue is whether that which is produced is journalism - not just speech and if it is not journalism, and issues of obstruction arise, then such should not be protected.

To explain, if the "reporter" is in some way contributing to the story - part of it, then he/she is part of the source an exhibits a causal element. In such cases, protections afforded "sources" would not be extended.

#24 By MysticSentinel (563 Posts) at 9/20/2007 2:58:14 PM

I would also state that just because someone is paid to report on an event or product, that does not necessarily make him a journalist.

#25 By lketchum (3180 Posts) at 9/20/2007 5:10:43 PM

#24, that was never part of the criteria.

My #23 above is about as clear as I can make it and under which conditions I assess protection of sources and methods would, or would not be afforded.

Please note, speech and the freedom thereof, was and never has been at issue.

Education about how to weight the relative merit of anything in "speech" - now that is badly needed. Far too many young people actually think that the colbert report, for example, is actual news - it isn't, but it is a form of social activism, presented as entertainment. It isn't journalism either nor is it protected as such.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 31
Next Page

The time now is 11:26:29 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us