PCs have crested as a transforming innovation.

From the POV of individual computer users there is less reason to run Windows than there used to be, and less reason to run Office. If MSFT can no longer provide value to individual users, its corporate customers will eventually flee too. MSFT lacks the real monopolist’s ability to keep customers captive. It dominates its markets only because it has provided (so far) highly-competitive products.

But I am a “power user” of excel and I know what I am doing and I would appreciate it if at least they would give me an option of leaving things mostly as-is. Since I know exactly how to navigate as is I don’t want to relearn some new way because net I am not gaining any efficiency – maybe someone new is, but I have to pay out of my pocket for an upgrade without features that I need so that Microsoft can make the transition easier for someone else.

I also think that they are cleanup a lot of the useless features that they added in previous versions that cluttered everything up in the first place.

But this issue is personal to me so I admit that my opinions on this particular item are biased.

Changing excel is like issuing a new “hammer” to every construction site in the world – even if the craftsmen benefit, they might not want to mess around with change right now. Since MSFT is a monopoly, I have to bend to their will, the only question is when, and what it will cost me.

Number of Menu Items
Word 1 = ~49
Word 95 = ~105
Word 2003 = ~260

Number of Toolbars
Word 1 = 1
Word 95 = ~6
Word 2003 ~30

Number of TaskPanes
Word 1 = 0
Word 95 = 0
Word 2003 = 50

Users of Office were gettign more and more frustrated using the program because the more features MS added.. the harder it was to present in the UI.. and eventually they ended up a bazillion menus and toolbars and confusing techniques to try to keep things from looking cluttered but only confused users even more.

That’s why the made the Ribbon. I followed the deveopment of it while it was going on.

A great blog that explained MS’s thinking is a blog by Office’s Program Manager.

http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/default.aspx

As far as the file size, we are having the same problem in my area. We just solved it by creating our stuff in Adobe Acrobat and sending it around like that, it massively shrinks everything down, too, and makes it easier to use with other browsers and OS. But it is an improvement that MSFT is trying to fix it.

My other problem with office 2007 is that, like BMW with the push start, they are trying to fix what isn’t broken. I don’t want anyone to mess with the excel interface, for example, because I have been using it the same way for years and it is fine with me. MSFT has their own agenda and attempts to change my behavior, when one of the main advantages of Office is that their tools are pretty constant so I don’t have to think much when I get an upgrade or new tool. The changes that they do make aren’t net much of an improvement but they are a pain in the rear.

As an anecdotal example, while at a previoud employer, we had a master reference manual that required constant updating as the environment it represented changed. Unfortunately, it was initially created in Word, using a large number of tables, at a time when the environment was much smaller and simpler. In Word 2000 (.doc) format, the file was 18 MB, making it difficult to use and update. (Comments on the lack of wisdom in our document management and documentation processes will be ignored – sometimes corporate inertia is simply too great to change) When converted to .docx, the file size dropped to a far more manageable 1.3 MB. Separating the data from the formatting, properties and peripheral data greatly increases the interoperability of Office documents (formerly a very closed format).

I’m not saying that this is going to revolutionize the industry or make Office the rightful king again, nor is it as great an advance as the original Office and MS Works in terms of individual productivity, but I think credit should be given where it is due. Office 2007 is a far cry from a repackaging of Office 2003.

Plus it is fully compatible with XP, so I don’t understand your Vista comment.

That’s another thing. I think Vista is getting a bad rap, simply because it has become vogue to bash on it. Again anecdotal, but a month after making the switch due to a new PC purchase, I find I am much preferring Vista SP1 to XP SP2 in speed and ease of use. However, I do agree with the complaints of too much restriction imposed on power users. The Home Edition doesn’t even allow Admin login. This, I find to be a big problem. While Vista has its problems, I think they are less than people claim. XP wasn’t even as good as people seem to remember until Service Pack 2 stabilized it.

Otherwise, great article and I appreciate both your insider’s view and greater-than-mine technical knowledge.

I have been dealing with them for a couple decades now on all sides of the table – as a developer, as a system owner, and as a negotiator. Plus I played some Halo :)

Some of the negatives of MS Platform are the same things that are positives.. basically that anyone with enough determination can put some IT solutions together with no formal education or expierence.

I think it took me about 4 years to learn proper application/system architecture. MS makes it easy to create really poorly architected database applications, which work well at first, but quickly become risky if the business grows mission-critical reliant on it… as a few of my programs became… it’s like the amateur programmer is a victim of his own sucess.

I didn’t really mention .net because I think it is getting blown away in the marketplace by Java and its variants. All the kids coming out of school are learning on linux and the web and not the Microsoft tools, although there is a big installed base for MSFT based on past history and the inevitable exchange installation. Look at the curriculum of most universities; java and linux are everywhere (along with web languages) and microsoft makes an appearance here and there.

This is my opinion and I am sure it would be hotly debated.

One item to realize is that I was a die-hard microsoft guy for many, many years and think that they did a lot for making tools easy to use and increased productivity. IMHO they have been circling the wagons and extracting cash from their properties lately rather than innovating, except on the far-less profitable xbox front.

Before the first consent decree, MS had contracts with some OEM’s that MS would get a royalty no matter what OS was on a machine. I dont remember what the connection with the main Antitrust case was… if they violated the decree or not.

I was born in 74 (so you can place me in time re: technology) Now I always had an interest in programming but in the late 80s was before Windows and was basically a C or C++ realm which to a kid like me with nothing other than the usual education, was a bit too abstract to come with anything.

In the early 90s I entered work force, and my jobs always seemed reliant on spreadsheets.. Windows 3.x was common by then, and the main spreadsheets were Quatrro Pro and Excel.

When Visual Basic was incorporated in Excel was when I was able to explain my programming-interest in a way that directly benefited my job. From there I moved to MS Access (their JET-based Database back-and-front end monolith). By the late 90s I had taught myself enough about Relational Database design and enough about Visual Basic to move onto SQL Server, the VB quickly gave way to ASP. This is about 2000.

By this time MS had too many isolated development platforms.. they had a frozen J++, C++, Visual Basic proper, Visual Basic for Applications, SQL, JET, ODBC, the Windows C-based 32 and 64 bit API, the MS-platform spanning COM, ASP.. each one with its own tools and language/API-level.

MS released the language-independent object-oriented Dot Net Framework in early 00s which was a reengineering of all that (or where something wasn’t recreated, the Framework served as a layer above the legacy platform)

They also came out with a new object oriented language, C# (C-Sharp), which built on the language/platform lessons learned from watching Sun implement Java

This framework is the tech engine that is driving MS into the future, and how it will compete for IT people to develop with Microsoft tools/platforms.

That still represents a huge proportion of sales, though – with the exception of macs and a few fringe guys like eee pc and a few Dells it is everything else.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that was the one of the original points of the first anti-trust suit. MS demanded from EOMs a royalty whether or not their OS was installed on a machine if the EOM wanted to install MS’s OS on any of their machines. Thus MS was able to accumulate the vast sums early on which to build their enterprise upon and that dominance.