|
i was surprised when i updated office 2011 on a mac after never doing it and they added retina graphics to the toolbars and poo poo
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:no thats just straight up office 97 running under wine that actually looks more usable than the latest sub based stuff
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
why hasn't office Mac added the time machine version control features yet that's been in os x for what, four major releases now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
minivanmegafun posted:why hasn't office Mac added the time machine version control features yet i'd like to figure it's being eaten alive internally by people in the other divisions, despite its profitability, and is succumbing to microsoftism of the 2010s
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
i actually had that happen to my lenovo the other day it was really weird
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:i was surprised when i updated office 2011 on a mac after never doing it and they added retina graphics to the toolbars and poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
office 97 was extremely good
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:office 97 was extremely good Office 97 was the last version of office that actually improved upon the former version, instead of stepping sideways in one way or another
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
i remember office xp being so bad i felt visceral pain for anyone that was stuck using it in like 2005
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
winders but with laffes
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
mishaq posted:i remember office xp being so bad i felt visceral pain for anyone that was stuck using it in like 2005 this was exactly my high school but in 2008
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
tbh i just use pages LOL
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
mishaq posted:i remember office xp being so bad i felt visceral pain for anyone that was stuck using it in like 2005 i remember telling people that office xp was $600, wordperfect office was $50, and as long as they weren't trying to do something esoteric in a spreadsheet or send electronic copies of documents to an idiot they were functionally identical most of the time people would refuse to believe that an oem cd in a sleeve was a legit full version of something so they'd go spend $700 at future shop
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:office for Mac is absolute garbo if you're trying to view marked up docs w/track changes. it literally will grind my computer to a standstill and beachball when I try to insert text to be fair, office for windows may crash w/o saving work if you have the audacity to try to track changes on a document with math formulas
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
mac office is so bad, its the main reason i use vmware
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:i remember telling people that office xp was $600, wordperfect office was $50, and as long as they weren't trying to do something esoteric in a spreadsheet or send electronic copies of documents to an idiot they were functionally identical i always liked wordperfect much, much more than ms word, and shitloads of people agreed with me. back in the day, they cost about the same amount of money and competed neck and neck. the genius move by microsoft is that they bundled excel and word together. excel was scads better than any of its competitors. and the 'office' bundle cost like $100 more than word or excel alone, in an era when a spreadsheet or word processor could be $300-400-500 individually. if you happened to like wordperfect, you might just not bother to buy it, because excel was an obvious win over quattro, and you got ms word for free. similarly, if you happened to like quattro/amipro, you might just not bother, because you could buy word and get excel for free. bundling killed the competition
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:bundling killed the competition agreed that wordperfect was the best
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
microsoft... butt love linux ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
tell us again how women shouldn't ask for raises, because that way they accumulate "good karma", which is even better 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
what exactly about Numbers isn't good enough for you people? also why does it say "microsoft love linux". can't they add and "s" or do like "we love linux"? how do they gently caress up everything that involves words????
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
prefect posted:tell us again how women shouldn't ask for raises, because that way they accumulate "good karma", which is even better don't forget the super-powers of staying quiet!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:what exactly about Numbers isn't good enough for you people? pivot tables
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
prefect posted:tell us again how women shouldn't ask for raises, because that way they accumulate "good karma", which is even better
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:what exactly about Numbers isn't good enough for you people? numbers is just slower and shittier than excel which is shocking because excel is really really lovely numbers looks better and makes better looking charts sure but it's not as good for spreadsheet work google spreadsheet is somehow worse except for when you are using a spreadsheet with other people not using a spreadsheet > excel > numbers > google spreadsheet
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:investor call later today could be fun ohh man also i doubt it'll come up but if they point out that sunset overdrive's pre-order numbers are garbage that'll be even better
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:what exactly about Numbers isn't good enough for you people? it genuinely has a lot less functions than excel that makes it nearly useless for a lot of statistical work. I like using it more than excel but i just never have a reason to use it over excel, etc. I mean, if i was just making an invoice or something, yeah Numbers would be my first choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:don't forget the super-powers of staying quiet! that's not even an "i misspoke" kind of thing -- unless he's got some kind of executive tourette's, that was him being as straightforward as possible whatta maroon
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
prefect posted:that's not even an "i misspoke" kind of thing -- unless he's got some kind of executive tourette's, that was him being as straightforward as possible
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Sniep posted:unfortunately the apple apps for numbers and pages are more like the apps in microsoft's old "Microsoft Works" budget package. any specific things you'd like to see? (I'll preempt "pivot tables in numbers" since that's been said)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Sniep posted:Office 97 was the last version of office that actually improved upon the former version, instead of stepping sideways in one way or another this but office 2001 for Mac, peak office on its original platform
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
each version of office ups the supported database size for outlook, i think because when office 97 came out people were just starting with email and they have to expand support for those who keep every email they've been sent since then
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
FMguru posted:they were also done in by the shift from dos to windows 3.x. lotus and wp and borland and ashton tate were slow to release win3 versions of their software (and what they released was usually half-assed and buggy), while msft pulled out all the stops to make word and excel the best-in-class on windows. Lotus was pretty quick with Improv for Windows though
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:what exactly about Numbers isn't good enough for you people? it doesn't have datanitro
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
numbers is fine for me but businesses literally run on insane piles of excel macros
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
actually i mostly just use google docs now
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
univbee posted:each version of office ups the supported database size for outlook, i think because when office 97 came out people were just starting with email and they have to expand support for those who keep every email they've been sent since then why would they not just use a database that's not size limited?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
gargle dicks
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:why would they not just use a database that's not size limited? i guarantee microsoft would have support calls within the hour for 1.5TB PST file repairs
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:07
|
|