Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Office 2000 is good to go

hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 160 posts

Re: Office 2000 is good to go

#141

Post by vurpo »

lmm wrote: post #122
GekkePrutser wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the MDI (Multiple Document Interface) was a really dumb idea. Having windows inside of windows. Funny, to me tabbed browsing has always seemed like a reinvention of the same concept.

Tabbed browsing just has full-window tabs though. Was the ability to resize, move, and stack these windows within windows ever wanted by any significant amount of people, or is tabbed browsing just a better implementation of the same concept (multiple "documents" open within one window)?

Re: Office 2000 is good to go

#142

Post by SlowBall »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #71

> The biggest competition for Office 2000 was . . . Office 97. And this is why Microsoft and Adobe are both pushing their products entirely over to subscriptions which stop working if you stop paying: They really don't do anything from version to version that justifies the cost or effort in upgrading. Subscription pricing for desktop software is an incredible way to tell your customers you have a lot of employees to…

I guess that's tongue in check. If that were the case shareholders would push for a reduction in the workforce.

Re: Office 2000 is good to go

#143

Post by pjmlp »

int_19h wrote: post #79
pjmlp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading between the lines of enumerous blog posts, I think him and his yes man were also responsible for torpedoing Longhorn and replacing all .NET ideas with COM. So now we have to "enjoy" that since then all new APIs are COM based. It is going to take decades to undo this, if until then we don't move all into "Azure OS" and it stops being relevant.

My biggest beef with Sinofsky is that he was apparently the one heavily pushing for JavaScript as a high-level ".NET replacement" for end-user apps running on top of all that COM API in Win8. So much effort spent on dev tooling around that, when it could have been spent on improving .NET instead.

Yes, Longhorn failed not due to technical issues, although yes there were quite a few of them.

It failed because teams worked against each other making sure it wouldn't happen, instead of sorting out the issues in a collaborative manner.

Joe Duffy mentions on his Rustconf keynote that even with Midori running in front of Windows team, they were asserting it wasn't possible to have such an OS.

Re: Office 2000 is good to go

#144

Post by staticautomatic »

Someone1234 wrote: post #30
abraxas wrote: post #28

Earlier 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…

I agree with you, playing devil's advocate though I would argue that Office largely won because it targeted casual usages even if it meant hurting professional ones. Then give it away to schools for $0 (in the 1990s) so they'd get a mass of beginner/casual users that brought it with them into professional settings. Word is awful at professional typesetting, but it is really easy to use casually for making resumes/let…

Have you ever read the documentation for that XML? It’s basically written in Zodiac cypher.

Re: Office 2000 is good to go

#146

Post by antod »

lmm wrote: post #122
GekkePrutser wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the MDI (Multiple Document Interface) was a really dumb idea. Having windows inside of windows. Funny, to me tabbed browsing has always seemed like a reinvention of the same concept.

except without the "tile" or "cascade" or just drag and drop rearrangement of them

Re: Office 2000 is good to go

#147

Post by [deleted] »

jl6 wrote: post #56

Oh 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.…

[deleted]

Re: Office 2000 is good to go

#148

Post by 5tefan »

The standard Explorer is already nothing to write home about. But Teams and SharePoint and OneDrive and a dumbed down online version of the Office Suit really kick my ass every day. Worst possible experience. Slow, cumbersome, they fuck around with my files, stripped of features but still bloated. As if they didn't even try to offer something good. It is a lost opportunity. They totally lost their way. Part of my job now is to avoid that misery as much as possible.

Re: Office 2000 is good to go

#149

Post by jiggawatts »

int_19h wrote: post #79
pjmlp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading between the lines of enumerous blog posts, I think him and his yes man were also responsible for torpedoing Longhorn and replacing all .NET ideas with COM. So now we have to "enjoy" that since then all new APIs are COM based. It is going to take decades to undo this, if until then we don't move all into "Azure OS" and it stops being relevant.

My biggest beef with Sinofsky is that he was apparently the one heavily pushing for JavaScript as a high-level ".NET replacement" for end-user apps running on top of all that COM API in Win8. So much effort spent on dev tooling around that, when it could have been spent on improving .NET instead.

To be fair, that’s precisely what Electron is, and Microsoft now uses it heavily.

Mind you, they’re using Electron because they couldn’t make a .NET GUI framework live for more than two years.

MAUI is due to die around 2025, mark my words.

Re: Office 2000 is good to go

#150

Post by mcny »

eitland wrote: post #139
johnebgd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharepoint is misery.

I've given up on reporting it so here you get another for free: if you use the information protection feature in SharePoint, be sure to test it extremely carefully. We evaluated it for a project two years ago and what we luckily realized before putting it into production was that there was a simple and straightforward way for an end user to download unencrypted versions of all the files they had access to, and no way…

If I understand your scenario, it is pretty silly anyways and probably meant as a checkbox to tick for procurement to agree to purchase Office 365.

It does not make sense to me to say I can view a document but not download it. If I can view a document, I can do screen capture. I think this used to be called the analog hole or something.

Post reply on HN