If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
I did a direct test running both Word 2007 and Word 2003 with rulers
enabled in both versions. There is definitely less document space in the 2007 version; not much less, but definitely less. My resolution was 1600 x 1200, Read Jensen's post carefully. He did the comparison with the out-of-the-box configuration. In that configuration, Word 2007 does not have the ruler always shown, but Word 97 does. From the MS point of view, a pretty fair comparison. The truth is that Office 2007 is just not designed for power users, but rather for the beginner to average user. Power users get screwed all the way in 2007 and the window visuals are a minor issue compared to the rest... Actually, Office's UI did need a huge overhaul. I recommend reading Jensen's why the UI series: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...ory/11720.aspx Patrick Schmid -------------- http://pschmid.net so I guess at lower resolutions one would have even less space. In addition, if you running this application in the new fangled widescreen laptops (the worse invention ever?), you will hardly get any writing space. In addition, in big screens the "ribbon" gets better use but in limited real estate, that ribbon with its huge icons is simply counterproductive and a lousy use of expensive and limited screen real estate. What is happening with Word 2007 is not unique. Many design teams, once they get an idea, they pursue it with zeal even if it is really a retreat from a successful design. Office's interface did not need any substantive makeover but I guess MS thought that the visual aspect will get the application sold. Big mistake. When one gets over the visual aspect of the interface, he/she will start finding the faults and this may quickly mushroom to a user "rebellion". Yes, MS can depend on HP and Dell and other manufacturers to bundle Office with their PCs, but a serious flaw may lead the door open to other competitors. It's one of the most interesting posts he ever did. I, as probably most users, could have sworn before reading it that there is less space for a document in 2007/ Patrick Schmid -------------- http://pschmid.net " wrote in message : Actually, you have (about) as much space for your document as you did with 2003. You get a different impression though, because the top part of the window (with the ribbon) is larger than the top part in 2003 (menu bar plus two toolbars) used to be. However, the bottom part of the window (status bar stuff) is smaller in 2007 than in 2003. What I'm seeing here with rulers on in both versions is that with 3 rows of toolbars in 2003, my slide is a bit bigger than it is in 2007. With the QAT below the ribbon, there's even less space available for me in 2007. Since I paid for the pixels, I consider that a bit presumptuous. ;-) What they added in space on the top, they saved on the bottom. The effective space available to your document is nearly identical, but shifted down compared to 2003. Odd. I only see a few pixel difference in the area at the bottom in PPT. A difference between your settings and mine, perhaps? ----------------------------------------- Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com PPTools: www.pptools.com ================================================ |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
"Patrick Schmid" wrote: I did a direct test running both Word 2007 and Word 2003 with rulers enabled in both versions. There is definitely less document space in the 2007 version; not much less, but definitely less. My resolution was 1600 x 1200, Read Jensen's post carefully. He did the comparison with the out-of-the-box configuration. In that configuration, Word 2007 does not have the ruler always shown, but Word 97 does. From the MS point of view, a pretty fair comparison. The truth is that Office 2007 is just not designed for power users, but rather for the beginner to average user. Power users get screwed all the way in 2007 and the window visuals are a minor issue compared to the rest... Actually, Office's UI did need a huge overhaul. I recommend reading Jensen's why the UI series: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...ory/11720.aspx I did Jensen's blog and the flaw in his thinking is terribly obvious. Apparently, in designing the interface, the team got statistics on which commands are used most and prioritized them. This is really bad thinking. One designing the UI should not worry which commands are used most but what the users are doing mostly. And although "bold" is number 5 in terms of frequency of use, this hardly means that this is essential and where we spend, as users, most of our time. When designing an experiment, it is important to define carefully what data you need to collect. In this case, some screwey programmer decided that it would be useful for MS to collect data on the frequency of commands used. Although I use the "bold" command numerically more often than the "outline" command, getting the latter right is much more important to me than streamlining the "bold" command for which I can write an easy macro. I am stunned by the fact that nobody in MS thought of prioritizing commands on the basis of their importance than in their frequency of usage. This is again a typical approach by design teams, they make assumptions that may or may not be shared by users and we end up with flawed products (and most are flawed). |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
In article , Patrick Schmid wrote:
Jensen did a comparison based upon 1024x768 and with the out of the box configuration: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...17/577485.aspx For PPT, that was 2 toolbars, menu bar and the drawing toolbar. It's one of the most interesting posts he ever did. I, as probably most users, could have sworn before reading it that there is less space for a document in 2007/ Same here but I know better than to trust me. I was able to size the windows to match (2003 in the host pc, 2007 in a VM) and overlap them. Here I still see a slight difference. But then it's all sort of an air-controversy in any case. The interface is what it is. Either we like it (and it won't change) or we don't (and it won't change). Arguing about it is about as useful as arguing about who won yesterday's soccer match. Patrick Schmid -------------- http://pschmid.net " wrote in message : Actually, you have (about) as much space for your document as you did with 2003. You get a different impression though, because the top part of the window (with the ribbon) is larger than the top part in 2003 (menu bar plus two toolbars) used to be. However, the bottom part of the window (status bar stuff) is smaller in 2007 than in 2003. What I'm seeing here with rulers on in both versions is that with 3 rows of toolbars in 2003, my slide is a bit bigger than it is in 2007. With the QAT below the ribbon, there's even less space available for me in 2007. Since I paid for the pixels, I consider that a bit presumptuous. ;-) What they added in space on the top, they saved on the bottom. The effective space available to your document is nearly identical, but shifted down compared to 2003. Odd. I only see a few pixel difference in the area at the bottom in PPT. A difference between your settings and mine, perhaps? ----------------------------------------- Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com PPTools: www.pptools.com ================================================ ----------------------------------------- Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com PPTools: www.pptools.com ================================================ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
Arguing about it is about as useful as arguing about who won
yesterday's soccer match. As long as Germany wins the World Cup, you are right Patrick Schmid -------------- http://pschmid.net " wrote in message : Actually, you have (about) as much space for your document as you did with 2003. You get a different impression though, because the top part of the window (with the ribbon) is larger than the top part in 2003 (menu bar plus two toolbars) used to be. However, the bottom part of the window (status bar stuff) is smaller in 2007 than in 2003. What I'm seeing here with rulers on in both versions is that with 3 rows of toolbars in 2003, my slide is a bit bigger than it is in 2007. With the QAT below the ribbon, there's even less space available for me in 2007. Since I paid for the pixels, I consider that a bit presumptuous. ;-) What they added in space on the top, they saved on the bottom. The effective space available to your document is nearly identical, but shifted down compared to 2003. Odd. I only see a few pixel difference in the area at the bottom in PPT. A difference between your settings and mine, perhaps? ----------------------------------------- Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com PPTools: www.pptools.com ================================================ ----------------------------------------- Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com PPTools: www.pptools.com ================================================ |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
In article , Patrick Schmid wrote:
Arguing about it is about as useful as arguing about who won yesterday's soccer match. As long as Germany wins the World Cup, you are right Hah, I KNEW that'd get your attention. g |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
LOL
" wrote in message : In article , Patrick Schmid wrote: Arguing about it is about as useful as arguing about who won yesterday's soccer match. As long as Germany wins the World Cup, you are right Hah, I KNEW that'd get your attention. g |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
Thank you! It's still slow (compared to PP'03) but decreasing hardware
acceleration definetly speeded it up. "Patrick Schmid" wrote: Hi ADR, It could be worse. Beta 2 is rather fast compared to the earlier (non-public) beta versions. You might want to try to decrease your hardware acceleration. As weird as this sounds, this might actually give you better performance in PowerPoint. To do this, go into Control Panel, Display, Settings, Advanced, Troubleshoot and reduce the setting of the slider there. This has been a proven measure to deal with performance problems in PowerPoint, and not just 2007. I have myself a top-of-the-line graphics card, but PPT 2007 is faster for me if I reduce hardware acceleration by one or two notches. Patrick Schmid -------------- http://pschmid.net "ADR" wrote in message : I do not know if it needs graphics acceleration, but the present version is undeniably very slow and difficult to work with. I think that "live preview" certainly affects performance. "Matt" wrote: 2007 graphics is slow unlike 2002 ---------------- This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then click "I Agree" in the message pane. http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...lic.powerpoint |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
why dosnt microsoft have a installer for powerpoint...????? | Matt | Powerpoint | 2 | June 30th, 2005 02:35 AM |
Can't install Powerpoint Version 2002 | Chicago Todd | Powerpoint | 2 | May 12th, 2005 12:20 PM |
Graphic from word to powerpoint | ecb | Powerpoint | 2 | March 10th, 2005 10:06 PM |
Problem with Powerpoint 2002 converted to Powerpoint 2000 | Lawrence | Powerpoint | 3 | May 25th, 2004 02:18 AM |
can't launch Powerpoint 2004 for mac | Scott | Powerpoint | 2 | May 23rd, 2004 07:14 PM |