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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Four KBs to address problems epidemic, ubiquitous and replete
I see no intent of spam from your post and I guess Milly is just being a
little over-sensitive. I agree with you that there are lots of posts asking about the same problem over and over again from various office users. They may or may not had read the KBs for their specific problems depending on their level of knowledge. Another obvious reason for these repeat postings are that there are no replys to them and they know of no other sources to ask their questions. If only the MVPs or any experienced users are willing to reply, and not presuming that the poster should do a search or read the KB first before posting which I do believe that most posters had already done their search for answers but to no avail, if they are able to find an immediate solutions from their search, they would not have posted in this Newsgroup waiting for that someone to help & reply which at the mean time is mostly not happening. This is my personal opinion and I don't mean to offend, but if I did, I apologise beforehand "Gregg Hill" wrote: If you had only posted in the suggested group, I would have missed it. I found this thread during a Google Groups search, and viola, there's the answer! THANK YOU! "Chad Harris" wrote in message ... Milly-- ) (are there a lot of people thinking seriously about this?) The problem of getting Office apps' SP1 updates in are showing up on all these groups, and most are shoowing up on mpo.update statistically but they are prominent and ubiquitous on the rest. The intent is to see the posts go down, that means that people aren't having the problems that anyone reasonable at any level knows they should not be having. They should be spending their time on enjoying Office, One Note, and Outlook and moving their learning curve from the dictum that 95% of Office users can only use 3% of its features. MSFT is a great company, but it's products have to be more intuitive and that is hardly to be equated with dumb downed. When SP launched I saw a lot of MSFT meetings where the presenter started saying to groups something like "We don't want you to have to worry your little heads about What's Behind the Gui"--not at Technet, TS2 or MSDN, but to IT Pros at professional firms who just laughed. Sadly, because of pressure borne by ignorance, Smart Tags were whacked out of XP RTM during its last Beta because people believed Redmond was using them to spy--faster than Tony Soprano would take out a troublesome storekeeper on his trash route. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-269167.html?legacy=cnet *There was no intent to spam, nor was there a spam result.* KBs ain't no spam when this many peoples be having moocho trouble getting a hotfix in. I *know a bell shaped curve of Enterprise decision makers would not be happy that their Sys Ads or IT staff has to resort to interpreting verbose logs or parsing product code GUIDs or download subkeys or hacking the registry in serial fashion* so that Suzy the Administrative Assistance or the back office personnel can use Office to get out documents or put something on an Outlook calendar or meeting schedule. Nor should they have to, but that's the way things are in Redmonville, North Carolina and Dallas Texasvill rhatt now. Spam is when some bozo or bozoess posts something entirely off topic to helping with these particular software and hardware problems and those are ususally promptly removed. If you think MSKBs on this topic on these groups that were carefully selected are spam, petition the boys and girls at Redmond and Dallas campuses who monitor these groups to remove those KBs you don't think are relevant there. So if it's spam, Milly why am I seeing so many posts on the other 3 groups that I hit that are headed "Can't install Office 2003 update." Sometimes it's can't install Outlook SP1 or One Note SP1 and although there are a few reasons for each, many have the same common demonimator as the Office 2003 SP1 problem and sometimes Office 2K or Office XP install problems outlined above. There's another point. Time. Some people who read the Outlook group for info, don't take or have time to read Office.misc, Offic.setup, office.update but experience the problem. Another is that you know what a KB is, and since you have so many ways to keep up with them at your fingertips, just don't click a topic as irrelevant and spammy as "Four New KBs issued on Updating Office 2003 SP1--although I think the volume of people I run into and see on the web having the problems is truly epidemic and pandemic and MSFT ought to address it with the MSI beyond Windows ® Installer. V 3.00.3790.2180 in XP SP2 RTM and Office .net/Longhorn/Version 12 that's percolating right now at Redmond, Dallas, and North Carolina, maybe Bangalore. Just take a good look. There are general Office SP1 questions on each group that I hit. They all should be directed to office.setup or office.update. *but they aren't.* They are on all these Office related groups--just look at the posts. And Milly is right there in case Ms. Perpicia Tick doesn't hit it to tell them where to take their post. There was no intent to spam and it wasn't spam. If you think it's spam, explain why there are about 500 posts with basically the same question with a differential diagnosis of a very few causes that Sloan tried to hit in the KBs just out. The average Office user isn't going to read the KBs at all nor is their help disk, and unfortunately they don't know the existence of these groups, but that's another issue. The average Windows user wouldn't know a KB from an SUV unfortunately. Ask the next time your in a super market check out line or buying a dress. Ask how many of them are fluent in Hex or Hungarian notation. Sometimes just a little too much is assumed at Redmond. I see this phenom a lot. People will duplicate post instead of cross post, and they will continue their threads erratically and sporadically on diffent groups at the same time for the same question. So one will have 5 posters and one will have 10 posters trying to help with the exact same question posted on different groups by the same poster at staggered intervals. You're not speaking for everyone. It's not spam for some people. It will cut down on posts and frustration for more people if they read Sloan's KBs. I see a lot of posts on each group that I hit that should properly be directed to One--OfficeUpdates, but they aren't. That's precisely why the crosspost was done. To get the KBs to people on the groups who all have multiple "I can't get my One Note, Outlook and Office SP1 in. And there is more diifficulty in getting this particular SP in for Office 2003 than there has been for years of Windows and Office service packs. Considerably more. Most people are not going to be able parse KBs, GUIDs, and verbose logs just to update Office nor should they have to. But that's apparently the way it is for reasons that are still not quite clear with all due respect to the major etiologies as posted by MSFT. The average Office user on the planet is not going to metabolize these Resource Kit tools well although a lot of us enjoy learning about them from people kind enough and skillful enough to teach us (like you, like Sloan, like the Outlook and Office experts and others). Again just yell Office Resource Kit in your supermarket checkout line and see if it gets the same response as "J-Lo's marrying again." My point--all the people in your checkout line need and use Office and Mr. Ballmer and Mr. Gates and Mr. Sinofsky darn well hope that continues. See NY Times Article on Office at the bottom. 1) registry keys that are way too easily corrupted 2) Local install cache corruptions that MSFT can't fix after 11 versions and Office 12, Office Longhorn, Office Blackcomb, and Office .net or whatever in the oven. 3) There is a tool available from the Office Resource Kit web site that will fix that for you. The Local Installation Source Tool that provides the ability to repair the Local Installation Source is available for download from http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/...rn/LISTool.htm. In addition of repairing the LIS, it will also provide the ability to move it to another disk drive. 2. You are seeing the following message""This patch package could not be opened. Verify that the patch package exists and that you can access it, or contact the application vendor to verify that this is a valid Windows Installer patch package." or some other patch specific issue. Try using the Windows Installer Cleanup Utility detailed here to uninstall Office: http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;290301 When you reinstall don't forget to not delete the local cache files at the end of the installation so you will have your Local Install Source intact and will be able to patch your Office installation without the possible need of the CD. This article is speaking to concerns MSFT has about their cash cow Office and most of these people aren't reading newsgroups, KBs, Technet Flash, or any Office newsletters. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/te.../16office.html Ambitious Package to Raise Productivity (and Microsoft's Profit) By STEVE LOHR Published: August 16, 2004 EDMOND, Wash. - To most of the computer-using world, Microsoft Office is the familiar workhorse of the desktop, a collection of software for creating documents, spreadsheets and presentations. But for Microsoft, which is starting to see its growth slow as it ages, reinventing that suite of old reliables - including Word, Excel and PowerPoint - has become nothing less than a key to its future. "Office defines business productivity," Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, told financial analysts in July. He added that "the productivity area is probably the most important franchise that we have." Advertisement With that focus, Microsoft is now pursuing a strategy to transform Office from a bundle of programs on personal computers into a family of software that can put Microsoft's technology deeper into the operations of corporate data centers. As Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft's chief executive, wrote in an e-mail message to employees last month, "Our biggest growth opportunity is with our existing base of Office users." Microsoft is banking on the Office initiative to help it fend off the challenge from open-source software and other competitors. But if the plan stumbles, Microsoft's hopes for sustained growth and greater profits could come under heavy pressure. The logic of building on the Office franchise is not hard to see, given that it has more than 90 percent of the market for office software applications. The information worker business at Microsoft, which is nearly all from Office, had revenues of $10.8 billion in the year ended in June, and operating profit of more than $7.15 billion. As a stand-alone business, Office - which on average sells for about $275 - would be slightly larger than the second-largest software company, Oracle, and far more profitable. Only the Windows operating system, the other pillar of Microsoft, is slightly larger. Traditional Office programs helped enhance productivity by allowing workers to easily create and modify digital documents. The aim of the new initiative is to increase the productivity with new tools for collaboration, communications, planning and document handling. New programs - like SharePoint, LiveMeeting, OneNote and InfoPath - have been introduced in the last year or so as part of the "Office system," a term Microsoft adopted last fall to replace "Office suite." The new design makes programs like Word, Excel and Outlook e-mail part of collaborative work spaces. In theory, a worker working in Word could tap into all the corporate information on a customer or project. "Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient will be the next revolution in worker productivity, and we want to be in the forefront," said Peter Rinearson, vice president for new business development in Microsoft's information worker group. "The goal is to make Office a tool that steadily delivers productivity improvements. It becomes a competitive advantage for the companies that use it well. If you don't have it, you can't keep up." Automating collaborative work, economists and analysts agree, is a promising frontier for productivity gains. The low-cost, networked communications of the Internet make it a possibility. But there is a long way to go. Analysts estimate that 95 percent of today's workers use the telephone and e-mail for team projects. Microsoft has plenty of competition in the emerging market, and Office's past success could prove an obstacle. "Microsoft is trying to make Office less a product and more like an online service," said Nate Root, an analyst for Forrester Research. "Adoption is going to be slow because Microsoft is trying to change the paradigm. It's a fundamental cultural change in how people think of and use Office." Yet across the Microsoft corporate campus, there is only optimism. Anoop Gupta, a former Stanford University professor and a vice president of Microsoft's real-time collaboration group, points to Microsoft's own experience with Web conferencing as proof of the new efficiencies. The company's use of LiveMeeting, a Microsoft conferencing program, has increased to 40,000 hours a week from 2,000 hours a week a year ago. Mr. Gupta says that one of every five face-to-face meetings can be replaced with Web conferencing tools, and Microsoft estimates that it will save $70 million in reduced travel this year. Continued 1 | 2 | Next Best, Chad Harris ____________________________________________ "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" wrote in message ... While we know that you mean well, please do not spam the news groups. A simple posting to m.p.o.misc would have been sufficient. __________________________________________________ ______________________ -- Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook] Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without reading. After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Chad Harris asked: | *Recent KBs that May Help with the Epidemic or Pandemic of Office 2003 | Installation Problems* | | | You cannot update your Office 2003 program to Service Pack 1 (August | 17, 2004) | http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;884298 | | Description of numbering scheme for product code GUIDs in Office 2003 | (August 17, 2004) | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=832672 | | Frequently asked questions about the local install source feature in | Office 2003(August 17, 2004) | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=830168 | | How to troubleshoot an update installation by using log files in | Office 2003 (August 13, 2004) | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884290 | | hth, | | Chad Harris |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Rick--
I appreicate your post. I think Milly is consistently over-sensitive when she knows this software so admirably well. If someone posts about an XP issue in an Office group, it isn't because they intend to go to the wrong place, or spam for money which is the common demoninator of most spammers, or just flail about for the first group they can click on with a blindfold, it's because the issue may be sufficiently confusing *to them* that they aren't sure if it's an Office or an OS issue. Sometimes, rarely, they don't think about where they are posting, or it is brand new to them as it was to Milly once upon a time, and there are times when even people experienced with this software since Win 1.0 or 3.0 or Office 1.0 aren't always sure. I also believe if a post is labeled *4 New KBs to Address MOS 03 SP1 install problems*, and those problems are multiplying exponentially, that the reader has the option not to click their mouse or keyboard combo either because they already know the info or they don't feel they need or want to. The bell shaped curve of people who could can't install Office 03 SP1 and hasn't read those KBs probably will need to or have someone who helps them read them instead. There may be a real compare and contrast master's thesis out there for someone as to the qualities of Office.setup and Office.update groups, but I'm not sure of all the nuances that contrast them. I don't know how I'd assess this prodigious amount of install difficulty if I were Sloan Crayton (MSFT) or Renete [MS] or Bob Cooley [MSFT] and had their "inside-baseball insight as to why this happened, or someone who is familiar with the Beta Testing of these service packs, and the special problems that seem to require such intensive care with Resource Kit tools and a gamut of MSKBs, particularly Office SP1 2003-- but I believe that Microsoft just completed a beta testing program for their operating system Windows XP that was for a service pack called SP2 that is currently releasing. The Windows SP clearly has exponentially less install problems at any time during its beta builds and certainly now that it's RTM. The vast majority of problems with XP SP2 are not *installation problems* either via the network download that was available on August 10, or Automatic or Windows Update's much smaller download. *They are 3rd party compatibility problems that don't have very much at all to do with MSFT whatsoever; they have to do with a bell shpaed curve of 3rd party software vendors who have chosen to address XP SP2 (Build 2180) by saying *nothing* on their web sites and doing nothing.* They could have said 1) Here's an patch or batch file to get through ports on the Windows Firewall 2) Our product is perfectly compatible with SP2 3) We don't have a clue what to tell you, but we'll get around to looking for compatibility sometime between XP SP2 and the next Beta, Longhorn--maybe we can sell you a new version of our 3rd party software on XP SP2 coat tails. This seems to be the novel approach of Norton who has a patch delivered not by a download on their site, but by a component called Live Update. The only paradoxical catch is that Live Update breaks without the patch--that's a real chicken-egg dilema. In contrast, Office 2003's service pack, is a service pack for an application that Bill Gates told financial analysts "defines Office productivity" as quoted in Technology section of the NY Times on August 16--two days ago. Along these lines Steven A. Ballmer sent MSFT employees an email last month that said "Our biggest growth opportunity is with our existing base of Office users." The times article went on to state "The information worker business at Microsoft, which is nearly all from Office, had revenues of $10.8 billion in the year ended in June, and operating profit of more than $7.15 billion. As a stand-alone business, Office - which on average sells for about $275 - would be slightly larger than the second-largest software company, Oracle, and far more profitable. Only the Windows operating system, the other pillar of Microsoft, is slightly larger." The article goes on to quote a former Stanford University professor, Anoop Gupta, who is VP of MSFT's Real Time Collaberation group that Office is evolving into an online culture with a paradigm shift that is morphing it into an online service with apps like Live Meeting and conferencing/collaberation features in Share Point, One Note, and Infopath along with the dimension that XML and DRM architecture brings. If Mr. Ballmer is right, and the biggest growth opportunity is Office, why did so many multi-faceted bright and talented people let this Service Pack release when it so darned hard to install compared to Windows XP SP2. If you can't install it, you can't use it--and that's when setup or update obstacles become very important. Anyone who has dealt with a thorny cascade of setup problems comes to learn this rapidly. These install problems should have been overcome with considerably more success and less special tools and KBs before they were made available--even if it took 3 more months. As to your insightful comments about MSFT's presumption, I agree with that vein. I understand that learning is rewarding, but I'm not sure that the one-upsmanship that seemsto accompany the ability to interpret verbose logs, parse GUIDs and reg subkeys, interpret hex messages, or Hungarian notation the way Charles Simonyi and his colleagues do is something that every Office user needs to aspire to. http://www.edge.org/digerati/simonyi/ To me the meaning of WYSIWYG also includes being simple to install so that you can concentrate on enjoying the features and productivity of this software that would have cut my time doing papers for class and other documents (visions of One Note) in college easily by 80% if not more. But maybe MSKBs and the Office Resource kit are going to need to be within arms reach of every secretary the way type eraser and a spelling dictionary were in a different era when Mr. Gates and Mr. Allen were riding their bikes at ages 13 and 15 to "C Cubed" to show the adults their programming errors with the DEC computer, and how to fix them. Best, Chad Harris ________________________________________________ "Rick" wrote in message ... I see no intent of spam from your post and I guess Milly is just being a little over-sensitive. I agree with you that there are lots of posts asking about the same problem over and over again from various office users. They may or may not had read the KBs for their specific problems depending on their level of knowledge. Another obvious reason for these repeat postings are that there are no replys to them and they know of no other sources to ask their questions. If only the MVPs or any experienced users are willing to reply, and not presuming that the poster should do a search or read the KB first before posting which I do believe that most posters had already done their search for answers but to no avail, if they are able to find an immediate solutions from their search, they would not have posted in this Newsgroup waiting for that someone to help & reply which at the mean time is mostly not happening. This is my personal opinion and I don't mean to offend, but if I did, I apologise beforehand "Gregg Hill" wrote: If you had only posted in the suggested group, I would have missed it. I found this thread during a Google Groups search, and viola, there's the answer! THANK YOU! "Chad Harris" wrote in message ... Milly-- ) (are there a lot of people thinking seriously about this?) The problem of getting Office apps' SP1 updates in are showing up on all these groups, and most are shoowing up on mpo.update statistically but they are prominent and ubiquitous on the rest. The intent is to see the posts go down, that means that people aren't having the problems that anyone reasonable at any level knows they should not be having. They should be spending their time on enjoying Office, One Note, and Outlook and moving their learning curve from the dictum that 95% of Office users can only use 3% of its features. MSFT is a great company, but it's products have to be more intuitive and that is hardly to be equated with dumb downed. When SP launched I saw a lot of MSFT meetings where the presenter started saying to groups something like "We don't want you to have to worry your little heads about What's Behind the Gui"--not at Technet, TS2 or MSDN, but to IT Pros at professional firms who just laughed. Sadly, because of pressure borne by ignorance, Smart Tags were whacked out of XP RTM during its last Beta because people believed Redmond was using them to spy--faster than Tony Soprano would take out a troublesome storekeeper on his trash route. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-269167.html?legacy=cnet *There was no intent to spam, nor was there a spam result.* KBs ain't no spam when this many peoples be having moocho trouble getting a hotfix in. I *know a bell shaped curve of Enterprise decision makers would not be happy that their Sys Ads or IT staff has to resort to interpreting verbose logs or parsing product code GUIDs or download subkeys or hacking the registry in serial fashion* so that Suzy the Administrative Assistance or the back office personnel can use Office to get out documents or put something on an Outlook calendar or meeting schedule. Nor should they have to, but that's the way things are in Redmonville, North Carolina and Dallas Texasvill rhatt now. Spam is when some bozo or bozoess posts something entirely off topic to helping with these particular software and hardware problems and those are ususally promptly removed. If you think MSKBs on this topic on these groups that were carefully selected are spam, petition the boys and girls at Redmond and Dallas campuses who monitor these groups to remove those KBs you don't think are relevant there. So if it's spam, Milly why am I seeing so many posts on the other 3 groups that I hit that are headed "Can't install Office 2003 update." Sometimes it's can't install Outlook SP1 or One Note SP1 and although there are a few reasons for each, many have the same common demonimator as the Office 2003 SP1 problem and sometimes Office 2K or Office XP install problems outlined above. There's another point. Time. Some people who read the Outlook group for info, don't take or have time to read Office.misc, Offic.setup, office.update but experience the problem. Another is that you know what a KB is, and since you have so many ways to keep up with them at your fingertips, just don't click a topic as irrelevant and spammy as "Four New KBs issued on Updating Office 2003 SP1--although I think the volume of people I run into and see on the web having the problems is truly epidemic and pandemic and MSFT ought to address it with the MSI beyond Windows Installer. V 3.00.3790.2180 in XP SP2 RTM and Office .net/Longhorn/Version 12 that's percolating right now at Redmond, Dallas, and North Carolina, maybe Bangalore. Just take a good look. There are general Office SP1 questions on each group that I hit. They all should be directed to office.setup or office.update. *but they aren't.* They are on all these Office related groups--just look at the posts. And Milly is right there in case Ms. Perpicia Tick doesn't hit it to tell them where to take their post. There was no intent to spam and it wasn't spam. If you think it's spam, explain why there are about 500 posts with basically the same question with a differential diagnosis of a very few causes that Sloan tried to hit in the KBs just out. The average Office user isn't going to read the KBs at all nor is their help disk, and unfortunately they don't know the existence of these groups, but that's another issue. The average Windows user wouldn't know a KB from an SUV unfortunately. Ask the next time your in a super market check out line or buying a dress. Ask how many of them are fluent in Hex or Hungarian notation. Sometimes just a little too much is assumed at Redmond. I see this phenom a lot. People will duplicate post instead of cross post, and they will continue their threads erratically and sporadically on diffent groups at the same time for the same question. So one will have 5 posters and one will have 10 posters trying to help with the exact same question posted on different groups by the same poster at staggered intervals. You're not speaking for everyone. It's not spam for some people. It will cut down on posts and frustration for more people if they read Sloan's KBs. I see a lot of posts on each group that I hit that should properly be directed to One--OfficeUpdates, but they aren't. That's precisely why the crosspost was done. To get the KBs to people on the groups who all have multiple "I can't get my One Note, Outlook and Office SP1 in. And there is more diifficulty in getting this particular SP in for Office 2003 than there has been for years of Windows and Office service packs. Considerably more. Most people are not going to be able parse KBs, GUIDs, and verbose logs just to update Office nor should they have to. But that's apparently the way it is for reasons that are still not quite clear with all due respect to the major etiologies as posted by MSFT. The average Office user on the planet is not going to metabolize these Resource Kit tools well although a lot of us enjoy learning about them from people kind enough and skillful enough to teach us (like you, like Sloan, like the Outlook and Office experts and others). Again just yell Office Resource Kit in your supermarket checkout line and see if it gets the same response as "J-Lo's marrying again." My point--all the people in your checkout line need and use Office and Mr. Ballmer and Mr. Gates and Mr. Sinofsky darn well hope that continues. See NY Times Article on Office at the bottom. 1) registry keys that are way too easily corrupted 2) Local install cache corruptions that MSFT can't fix after 11 versions and Office 12, Office Longhorn, Office Blackcomb, and Office .net or whatever in the oven. 3) There is a tool available from the Office Resource Kit web site that will fix that for you. The Local Installation Source Tool that provides the ability to repair the Local Installation Source is available for download from http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/...rn/LISTool.htm. In addition of repairing the LIS, it will also provide the ability to move it to another disk drive. 2. You are seeing the following message""This patch package could not be opened. Verify that the patch package exists and that you can access it, or contact the application vendor to verify that this is a valid Windows Installer patch package." or some other patch specific issue. Try using the Windows Installer Cleanup Utility detailed here to uninstall Office: http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;290301 When you reinstall don't forget to not delete the local cache files at the end of the installation so you will have your Local Install Source intact and will be able to patch your Office installation without the possible need of the CD. This article is speaking to concerns MSFT has about their cash cow Office and most of these people aren't reading newsgroups, KBs, Technet Flash, or any Office newsletters. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/te.../16office.html Ambitious Package to Raise Productivity (and Microsoft's Profit) By STEVE LOHR Published: August 16, 2004 EDMOND, Wash. - To most of the computer-using world, Microsoft Office is the familiar workhorse of the desktop, a collection of software for creating documents, spreadsheets and presentations. But for Microsoft, which is starting to see its growth slow as it ages, reinventing that suite of old reliables - including Word, Excel and PowerPoint - has become nothing less than a key to its future. "Office defines business productivity," Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, told financial analysts in July. He added that "the productivity area is probably the most important franchise that we have." Advertisement With that focus, Microsoft is now pursuing a strategy to transform Office from a bundle of programs on personal computers into a family of software that can put Microsoft's technology deeper into the operations of corporate data centers. As Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft's chief executive, wrote in an e-mail message to employees last month, "Our biggest growth opportunity is with our existing base of Office users." Microsoft is banking on the Office initiative to help it fend off the challenge from open-source software and other competitors. But if the plan stumbles, Microsoft's hopes for sustained growth and greater profits could come under heavy pressure. The logic of building on the Office franchise is not hard to see, given that it has more than 90 percent of the market for office software applications. The information worker business at Microsoft, which is nearly all from Office, had revenues of $10.8 billion in the year ended in June, and operating profit of more than $7.15 billion. As a stand-alone business, Office - which on average sells for about $275 - would be slightly larger than the second-largest software company, Oracle, and far more profitable. Only the Windows operating system, the other pillar of Microsoft, is slightly larger. Traditional Office programs helped enhance productivity by allowing workers to easily create and modify digital documents. The aim of the new initiative is to increase the productivity with new tools for collaboration, communications, planning and document handling. New programs - like SharePoint, LiveMeeting, OneNote and InfoPath - have been introduced in the last year or so as part of the "Office system," a term Microsoft adopted last fall to replace "Office suite." The new design makes programs like Word, Excel and Outlook e-mail part of collaborative work spaces. In theory, a worker working in Word could tap into all the corporate information on a customer or project. "Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient will be the next revolution in worker productivity, and we want to be in the forefront," said Peter Rinearson, vice president for new business development in Microsoft's information worker group. "The goal is to make Office a tool that steadily delivers productivity improvements. It becomes a competitive advantage for the companies that use it well. If you don't have it, you can't keep up." Automating collaborative work, economists and analysts agree, is a promising frontier for productivity gains. The low-cost, networked communications of the Internet make it a possibility. But there is a long way to go. Analysts estimate that 95 percent of today's workers use the telephone and e-mail for team projects. Microsoft has plenty of competition in the emerging market, and Office's past success could prove an obstacle. "Microsoft is trying to make Office less a product and more like an online service," said Nate Root, an analyst for Forrester Research. "Adoption is going to be slow because Microsoft is trying to change the paradigm. It's a fundamental cultural change in how people think of and use Office." Yet across the Microsoft corporate campus, there is only optimism. Anoop Gupta, a former Stanford University professor and a vice president of Microsoft's real-time collaboration group, points to Microsoft's own experience with Web conferencing as proof of the new efficiencies. The company's use of LiveMeeting, a Microsoft conferencing program, has increased to 40,000 hours a week from 2,000 hours a week a year ago. Mr. Gupta says that one of every five face-to-face meetings can be replaced with Web conferencing tools, and Microsoft estimates that it will save $70 million in reduced travel this year. Continued 1 | 2 | Next Best, Chad Harris ____________________________________________ "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" wrote in message ... While we know that you mean well, please do not spam the news groups. A simple posting to m.p.o.misc would have been sufficient. __________________________________________________ ______________________ -- Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook] Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without reading. After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Chad Harris asked: | *Recent KBs that May Help with the Epidemic or Pandemic of Office 2003 | Installation Problems* | | | You cannot update your Office 2003 program to Service Pack 1 (August | 17, 2004) | http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;884298 | | Description of numbering scheme for product code GUIDs in Office 2003 | (August 17, 2004) | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=832672 | | Frequently asked questions about the local install source feature in | Office 2003(August 17, 2004) | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=830168 | | How to troubleshoot an update installation by using log files in | Office 2003 (August 13, 2004) | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884290 | | hth, | | Chad Harris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|