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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
In article , Austin Myers wrote:
"Steve Rindsberg" wrote in message ... And as I understand it, for some corporate users there's no choice. They're required to accept all upgrades in order to maintain their support contracts. Really? I thought the way those subscriptions work is that you always get the newest license with them, but that you can use any older version as well. I thought most corporations were on the "every other version" implementation cycle, so basically a new Office every 4 years instead of 2. I don't really know how they work; maybe someone who knows the details can fill us in. That'd be interesting. From what I can see, all the old shourt cut keystrokes work as they always have. Er. What? Right reply to the wrong message? ;-) ----------------------------------------- Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com PPTools: www.pptools.com ================================================ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
"Austin Myers" wrote: On the other hand, I also observed that these applications retain the "Vista" look and do not adapt to the XP Pro environment in terms of their window specifics. So, they seem to be geared for a different graphics environment than the one in XP. I hope that this changes in the final release because not everybody will be buying Vista. MS has the Windows Presentation Foundation upgrade (as a service pack) in the works for older versions of Windows. In fact it's available as a beta for XP now. I think once the rough spots are worked out you and other XP users will really like the results. Dear Austin, Would you know where this beta is located? Thanks |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
"Patrick Schmid" wrote: On the other hand, I also observed that these applications retain the "Vista" look and do not adapt to the XP Pro environment in terms of their window specifics. So, they seem to be geared for a different graphics environment than the one in XP. I hope that this changes in the final release because not everybody will be buying Vista. If you mean the general look of the window not adapting to the WinXP system look, then no, this won't change. That's the final look. I don't think it is geared towards a different graphics environment. I downloaded Vista B2, but haven't installed it yet. Once I have it installed and running, I'll see how PPT does there, but I doubt it'll be much of a difference. Patrick Schmid -------------- http://pschmid.net Dear Patrick, Thanks for the information. I do not want to double guess the marketing mavericks of Microsoft but I think that lots of people will stick with XP instead of going to Vista but they would like to use Office 2007. They should not be forced to upgrade to Vista because of Office. If MS has decided to do this, it would be unfortunate |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
Thanks for the information. I do not want to double guess the marketing mavericks of Microsoft but I think that lots of people will stick with XP instead of going to Vista but they would like to use Office 2007. They should not be forced to upgrade to Vista because of Office. As has already been said, Office 2007 will run under XP (SP2). Nobody's going to be forced to Vista. You can even choose, under XP, to use Office 2007 with either the XP or Vista "look". ----------------------------------------- Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com PPTools: www.pptools.com ================================================ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
Why would they be forced to? I have been using Office 2007 since
November on Windows XP and I don't see a single reason why I would need Vista. That the Office windows don't look like standard Windows XP windows is a whole different story and quite frankly, they don't look like Vista either. They look like Office 2007 and in my opinion there is nothing wrong about that. Skinning a programming to make it look different from the standard OS look is a new trend that other programs started (think FireFox, Windows Media Player, WinAMP, Trillian...just to name a few). Why should Office not have the right to do the same? Just because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean that Office has to follow the Windows lead. In fact, Office often takes the lead over Windows and Windows then later picks up a feature. For example, Office introduced speech recognition and it was then later transferred over to Windows and now with 2007 completely removed from Office. If you are the MS Office division, then you happen to be the better child in town. Office has for the past few versions always been on time. If you have been following the news, then you know that the track record of the Windows division is pretty bad (the plan what their next OS would look like that they announced somewhere in the late 1990s is still not fully implemented in Vista, which will ship in 2007). If you are the better child in town and make a lot of profit, then you are quite free whatever you want to do and don't need to feel strangled by what another division with much worse behavior thinks you should do. In my opinion, the Office UI team had any right to change the UI look and ignore Windows on this. I know that probably half the people here will disagree with me, and I have heard all the arguments of why Office should look like all other Windows programs (at least for the window itself). It's not going to happen and everyone will have to get used to Office looking different than other Windows programs. Patrick Schmid -------------- http://pschmid.net "ADR" wrote in message : "Patrick Schmid" wrote: On the other hand, I also observed that these applications retain the "Vista" look and do not adapt to the XP Pro environment in terms of their window specifics. So, they seem to be geared for a different graphics environment than the one in XP. I hope that this changes in the final release because not everybody will be buying Vista. If you mean the general look of the window not adapting to the WinXP system look, then no, this won't change. That's the final look. I don't think it is geared towards a different graphics environment. I downloaded Vista B2, but haven't installed it yet. Once I have it installed and running, I'll see how PPT does there, but I doubt it'll be much of a difference. Patrick Schmid -------------- http://pschmid.net Dear Patrick, Thanks for the information. I do not want to double guess the marketing mavericks of Microsoft but I think that lots of people will stick with XP instead of going to Vista but they would like to use Office 2007. They should not be forced to upgrade to Vista because of Office. If MS has decided to do this, it would be unfortunate |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
Why would they be forced to? I have been using Office 2007 since November on Windows XP and I don't see a single reason why I would need Vista. That the Office windows don't look like standard Windows XP windows is a whole different story and quite frankly, they don't look like Vista either. They look like Office 2007 and in my opinion there is nothing wrong about that. Skinning a programming to make it look different from the standard OS look is a new trend that other programs started (think FireFox, Windows Media Player, WinAMP, Trillian...just to name a few). Why should Office not have the right to do the same? Just because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean that Office has to follow the Windows lead. I am sure that this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I do think that the OS should impose some limits on "creativity" for consistency. To be honest, I am not thrilled about any of the color schemes in the current beta (I am sure that the final product would have additional choices). In fact, Office often takes the lead over Windows and Windows then later picks up a feature. For example, Office introduced speech recognition and it was then later transferred over to Windows and now with 2007 completely removed from Office. I would have much preferred if MS spent time and effort to make the applications smarter than they currently are and should steer clear of voice recognition. My reaction to the current beta is that (a) Word seems to have been marginally improved (b) Excel is not that much changed and (c) Powerpoint is unusable because it is exceedingly slow (with hardware acceleration on or off). The new interface has been a disappointment for me. I was quite comfortable with the previous one and I just do no see any benefits from this one at all. If I needed to do something that took too many keystrokes, I built a macro. I just do not need the huge screen waste for the current "ribbon". Especially, on widescreen laptops most of what the users would see on the screen would be the interface!!! If you are the MS Office division, then you happen to be the better child in town. Office has for the past few versions always been on time. If you have been following the news, then you know that the track record of the Windows division is pretty bad (the plan what their next OS would look like that they announced somewhere in the late 1990s is still not fully implemented in Vista, which will ship in 2007). If you are the better child in town and make a lot of profit, then you are quite free whatever you want to do and don't need to feel strangled by what another division with much worse behavior thinks you should do. In my opinion, the Office UI team had any right to change the UI look and ignore Windows on this. OK...but they should consider the users and not just the beginners or the computerphobes. Computers are productivity machines and we do not need anything that will slow us down. Take Word for instance. It still does not do outline documents in a clever way...it is just too stupid for them. Even the current version fails at this. And there is no way of "teaching" the software. I would throw all the "ribbons" in the waste basket and work on having software that learns and adopts and fits you like a glove. And give this message from me to the developers in MS. Very few people have massive 21 inch screens and most people would like to see their document (or as much of it) and not have the program take over most of the screen real-estate. I know that probably half the people here will disagree with me, and I have heard all the arguments of why Office should look like all other Windows programs (at least for the window itself). It's not going to happen and everyone will have to get used to Office looking different than other Windows programs. Possibly..or it would be a commercial flop and then MS would have to make changes. And I simply do not like that mentality. The customer should be the target here of any improvements not the pride of any development division. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
I am sure that this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I do think
that the OS should impose some limits on "creativity" for consistency. To be honest, I am not thrilled about any of the color schemes in the current beta (I am sure that the final product would have additional choices). One additional one actually. MS announced recently that the final product will ship with three choices. No one knows though at this point what the third color scheme looks like. I would have much preferred if MS spent time and effort to make the applications smarter than they currently are and should steer clear of voice recognition. My reaction to the current beta is that (a) Word seems to have been marginally improved (b) Excel is not that much changed and (c) Powerpoint is unusable because it is exceedingly slow (with hardware acceleration on or off). The new interface has been a disappointment for me. I was quite comfortable with the previous one and I just do no see any benefits from this one at all. If I needed to do something that took too many keystrokes, I built a macro. I just do not need the huge screen waste for the current "ribbon". Especially, on widescreen laptops most of what the users would see on the screen would be the interface!!! 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 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. OK...but they should consider the users and not just the beginners or the computerphobes. Computers are productivity machines and we do not need anything that will slow us down. Take Word for instance. It still does not do outline documents in a clever way...it is just too stupid for them. Even the current version fails at this. And there is no way of "teaching" the software. I would throw all the "ribbons" in the waste basket and work on having software that learns and adopts and fits you like a glove. And give this message from me to the developers in MS. Very few people have massive 21 inch screens and most people would like to see their document (or as much of it) and not have the program take over most of the screen real-estate. See my above comment. Adaptive software is actually very difficult to develop and often times end up annoying users a lot because the program thinks it knows what you want to do/are doing, but then it happens to be that one time when you want to do something different. Take the personalized menus in 2003 e.g.. They were an attempt in making Office adaptive, but from a usability point of view managed to only hide features to users. Most power users turned them off right away anyhow (and in 2007, they are turned off by default). Possibly..or it would be a commercial flop and then MS would have to make changes. And I simply do not like that mentality. The customer should be the target here of any improvements not the pride of any development division. Even the people who complain about this right now a lot will eventually get used to it. Change is always difficult for human beings to handle and this is just one of those cases. Office 2007 won't be a commercial flop, just because it is Office. All the OEMs, retailers, etc will switch to it and so will quite a few big corporations. It will sell quite a lot and MS really doesn't need to worry that it will be a flop. If something isn't well received by customers, MS might change it with Office 14 (#13 is being skipped). Many companies (the biggest Office customers) usually skip one Office version anyhow, so they might skip 2007 if they don't like it. It won't be because of the way the windows don't look like Windows XP. It will be for other issues such as lack of user customization, charting issues, etc. Patrick Schmid -------------- http://pschmid.net |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
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 ================================================ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
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/ 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 ================================================ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002
"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. Patrick, 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, 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 ================================================ |
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 |