I believe some around 2000 Office and Windows reached their peaks of usability. They seemed to designed to get stuff done. Since then it seems they crammed more and more "intelligent" functions into the software that made them less predictable. I still don't know under what circumstances Windows Search finds things sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. Lately Outlook search feels random. Teams search is a complete mess…
What I find the worst about Teams' search is how it can find individual messages, but not the context surrounding them! So you can find the question you asked 6 months ago, but not the answers! And no way to go back to a precise date in the past (or I haven't found it) and scrolling too quickly is buggy. Between my two work computers, I have different versions of outlook and between the two, Microsoft seriously screw…
Office 2000 is good to go
121–130 of 160 posts
Re: Office 2000 is good to go
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it looked so clean! https://i.imgur.com/u9U8VLm.png
Totally agree except the MDI (Multiple Document Interface) was a really dumb idea. Having windows inside of windows. Now that I see the double window controls I remember how bad and confusing that was. And so much work moving all these scroll bars trying to reach other scroll bars inside them. Yuck. Besides for MDI which a lot of MS apps suffered from, it was great.
Funny, to me tabbed browsing has always seemed like a reinvention of the same concept.
Re: Office 2000 is good to go
#123I can't think of anything in my office usage that wasn't available in 2000. Admittedly I've not used Outlook for a fair few years. I still pay £30 or so a year for the annual licence when it comes on sale just to be able to open docs natively though!
Excel: multiple conditional formatting, over 65536x256, sparksline, new functions like COUNTIFS,ENCODEURL
Re: Office 2000 is good to go
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it looked so clean! https://i.imgur.com/u9U8VLm.png
Totally agree except the MDI (Multiple Document Interface) was a really dumb idea. Having windows inside of windows. Now that I see the double window controls I remember how bad and confusing that was. And so much work moving all these scroll bars trying to reach other scroll bars inside them. Yuck. Besides for MDI which a lot of MS apps suffered from, it was great.
It's like tabs, but you can also put dialogs side by side.
Re: Office 2000 is good to go
#125Oh for the simplicity and consistency of Office 2000. I now live in the hell that is Office+SharePoint+Teams, where features churn at random intervals and nobody knows where anything is really stored. This is a real thing that happens to me regularly: Someone sends me an email with a spreadsheet attached. Except it’s not an attachment, even though it looks like one. Needless to say I can’t access it until I’m online.…
Or: 1. you start chatting in a meeting. The chat persists. The meeting is cancelled. Now the chat is called $meeting_name (cancelled). All the files and chat are attached to that.
or: 1. you have a chat with $person1 and $person2 2. you are also on a team with $person1 and $person2 3. you are on a calendar invite with $person1 and $person2. ALL of those have their own file storage directories, chats, and PERSISTENCE. But, they are not linked, and everything in them is permanent, but cannot be searched (effectively)
The fact that teams meetings have persistent file share and chat is actually mind bending. Because that feature is not just "meet with a team".
final one: 1. you can be on team with 5 people. 2. you can create infinite channels in that team, not everyone in the team is necessarily on every channel. The file structure of the channel is _not_ hierarchical from the team. sorta.
I honestly don't know what they are thinking. Instead of version control, save as, and renaming, we instead have an abysmal proliferation of shares which are at any given time being cleaned up, archived, or purged for non-use by an IT department who is doing their best. But, as users, I can spawn a new discrete file share environment for every single chat I have. Don't even contemplate what happens when you have 4 people in a chat, share a file and add a 5th person.
all the possible inversions are terrible.
Also: none of the stuff in the teams, files, folders, calendar chats, channels, or one-to-one chats end up in my Onedrive. None of this stuff can be turned off by group policy, either.
If anyone at microsoft reads this: Please, allow group policy to disable file STORAGE in arbitrary chats. share is fine, but I don't want to send a file to someone and have that stored version become the authoritative version. I want to send them a file. If i wanted a cloud version, I could put it in a team or in one drive.
Re: Office 2000 is good to go
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Office 2003 is the sweet spot. It's also the last version that installs entirely offline, without any attempts to sign in or phone home for verification.
Office 2003 has usage telemetry, and was apparently quite useful when they were making Office 2007, because they knew what people actually used and how often.
Re: Office 2000 is good to go
#127Oh for the simplicity and consistency of Office 2000. I now live in the hell that is Office+SharePoint+Teams, where features churn at random intervals and nobody knows where anything is really stored. This is a real thing that happens to me regularly: Someone sends me an email with a spreadsheet attached. Except it’s not an attachment, even though it looks like one. Needless to say I can’t access it until I’m online.…
> But apparently it is stored on Sharepoint? Or is it OneDrive? And Teams is actually Sharepoint behind the scenes anyway? Yep it is and in fact so is OneDrive itself. So in the end everything is stored in SharePoint. Somewhere. Somehow. SharePoint isn't exactly good at finding stuff however so it's all there somewhere but doubt you'll ever find it back in SharePoint proper. Totally agree with your post by the way. O…
Re: Office 2000 is good to go
#128I believe some around 2000 Office and Windows reached their peaks of usability. They seemed to designed to get stuff done. Since then it seems they crammed more and more "intelligent" functions into the software that made them less predictable. I still don't know under what circumstances Windows Search finds things sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. Lately Outlook search feels random. Teams search is a complete mess…
What I find the worst about Teams' search is how it can find individual messages, but not the context surrounding them! So you can find the question you asked 6 months ago, but not the answers! And no way to go back to a precise date in the past (or I haven't found it) and scrolling too quickly is buggy. Between my two work computers, I have different versions of outlook and between the two, Microsoft seriously screw…
Re: Office 2000 is good to go
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine that abbreviations are common in these languages?
It really depends on the phrase. FAQ was just used as an extreme example.
Re: Office 2000 is good to go
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When I write stuff in Word, Word seems very opinionated and messes up formatting all the time This has been an issue with Word from its inception. This is because Word is broken at its core. The formatting is neither style based nor paragraph based. It's a weird mix. You can apply a style and then override it ad hoc creating a mess of a structure under the covers no doubt. I also heard horror stories about the nati…
> You can apply a style and then override it ad hoc creating a mess of a structure under the covers no doubt. I also heard horror stories about the native Word file format (at least in the days of Word6/Word97). Yeah I really miss the source screen of WordPerfect. That was an amazing feature and if they added that to Word it would actually be worth it to upgrade for once.