Vista and XP users interested in checking out Windows 7 may have plenty of time to decide. There's a little trick that can extend the free trial from 30 days to a full four months. If you can't figure out what to do by then, I'd suggest getting a little backbone.
The geniuses at Windows Secrets figured this whole deal out, and offer detailed instructions. All you've got to do is click the link.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/24/2009 at 1:17 PM1 comments
Which format camp do you belong to -- the tried and true .DOC or the sleek and shiny .DOCX? Here are some more of your thoughts:
I love the .DOCX file format, mainly because for macros to run, the file needs to be in .DOCM or plain old-fashioned .DOC format. Security wins. I'll open an e-mailed .DOCX file much more readily than any other...even .RTF. Well, plain old .TXT works, as well.
-Anonymous
I like .DOC because I can open it with an editor (for example, Ultra Edit) and see what someone wrote. .DOCX is not human-readable.
-Andes
I save ALL of my work in the newer .DOCX, .XLSX formats.
-Anonymous
Not in love with Office 2007. Change for change's sake never made any sense to me. How does the .DOCX file format improve the product? I see no apparent advantages and the major disadvantage is that it is not backward-compatible.
-Gene
I like the new XML-based formats for Word, Excel, etc. The file sizes are smaller -- in some case half as small as the old formats. Office 2003 users can easily install a free compatibility pack from Microsoft, although not all of the newer features are supported. Generally, though, it does a good job.
In a fast-moving, technology-based world, I'm amazed how many people are reluctant to change. Wait 'til Office 2010 happens!
-Andy
To counteract the "netbook effect," Microsoft has hinted at producing a line of "ultrathins" next year. But one reader thinks that's missing the point:
The appeal of netbooks is the small size and longer battery life. If an "ultrathin" is larger and the higher performance shortens battery life, it will not have the same appeal as a netbook.
-Anonymous
And finally, Clinton has one suggestion for Doug's son, who's trying to get published (hopefully, with some of your help!):
Even though the iPhone and mobile platforms are competing with downloadable content, I would motivate your son to research the Kindle and the eBook publishing platform in general as a line of business for self-publishing.
Let's briefly consider the facts: Amazon does all of the work hosting and managing the commerce, paying the author a 70-30 split on a $1.99 per month subscription. A clever and creative kid with a comic book or some contemporary version of Tom Swift (or anybody, for that matter) could, in due time, quite easily attract 10,000 subscribers paying the author $5,900 per month. Not too shabby.
-Clinton
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/21/2009 at 1:17 PM0 comments
Free speech nuts and Internet libertarians don't always like my opinions. For one, I don't think the Internet should be a free-for-all of filth, and there should be a way adults can prove their age to see the crazy stuff and block it for 10-year-olds. Nor do I believe in pure online anonymity. One should not be able to harass, commit crimes or hack -- and then hide behind a cloak of Internet invisibility.
Microsoft researchers apparently agree and want to help us all track down hackers by finding out who they are and what host servers they use.
I do worry about what governments could do with these techniques. Not just Iran and North Korea, but even "free" countries like the good, old US of A which could abuse our personal rights. Should we give up our anonymity to expose hackers and other creeps? Tell me what you think, anonymous or otherwise, at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/21/2009 at 1:17 PM33 comments
David Coursey is a veteran computer journalist and commentator with whom I had the pleasure of working years ago at InfoWorld. Coursey is still up to his old tricks, offering insight, analysis and bold opinions that would make Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann proud.
I'm not sure I totally agree with his Mac Office conspiracy theory, but here goes: Coursey believes that Microsoft hobbled Mac Office by not including Outlook, making the Mac as tough a sale in enterprises as copies of the Quran in a Baptist convention (or the Bible in a Taliban camp). In David's view, Microsoft only agreed to a Mac Outlook after Apple itself started building Exchange-compatible clients.
I'm not sure what to think and, as usual, rely on your good judgment. Set me straight at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/21/2009 at 1:17 PM6 comments
Exchange 2010 is now in release candidate stage and interested parties can download the beast from TechNet. Oddly enough, Exchange 2010 works with Exchange 2003 and Exchange 2007 R2, but not Exchange 2007 itself.
Are you attracted by 2010's SaaS and unified communication features, or are you currently using or eying an alternative? Use whatever e-mail system you want and send your thoughts to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/21/2009 at 1:17 PM4 comments
Microsoft is trying to push users of older browsers to IE 8, but as Andy found out, that's easier said than done:
We are currently using IE 7 because our accounting software, made by Microsoft, doesn't support IE 8. The software doesn't support .NET 3.5 SP1, either.
Maybe Microsoft should get all of its own software compliant before it worries about helping others.
-Andy
The recent ruling against Microsoft to block Word sales in the U.S. led Doug to a discussion about .DOC vs. .DOCX. Readers share which side they fall on in the document format battle:
.DOC! I save in .DOC for compatibility among my PCs and others that I have to work with on projects, etc.
-Brett
.DOCX is smaller, but I still prefer .DOC as it is more universal. I still use 2003 (we talked about the hated ribbon last week, didn't we?), so I run the compatibility pack. I do not see any logical reason to change.
-Rusty
.DOCX saves space over .DOC. Just one of those things.
-Anonymous
I love the new format; it is smaller and works well. .DOC is a fine format, but the same could be said of the old Lotus 1-2-3 formats that have gone by the wayside. Move on and use the new formats.
-Anonymous
I hate Word 2007 -- both the .DOCX format and the fact that there's no drop-down menu like in 2003.
-George
Most of the people in my company are still using Office 2003 so I stay with .DOC. It works, so why change and confuse everyone?
-Louie
The .DOC format is universal. Not sure what the value of an XML-based format is to non-programmers. Microsoft loves to make things more complicated for its users. Look how much more difficult it is to manage a SQL 2008 system than a SQL 2000 system.
-Anonymous
But a couple of readers are curious about the dispute's broader implications:
.DOCX is smaller but is it better? Dunno. My question is: How does this judicial decision affect the business users of Word? Or did the judge simply ignore business/economics as is typical of the judiciary? Is this gonna cause a major headache for IT shops? Be nice to get a heads up on that.
-J.C.
The bigger issue here is not .DOCX. It's that the court did not invalidate the patent for a company that is trying to patent the use of XML for a specific purpose, in this case representation of a document. It's the equivalent of requiring that all document formats must either be proprietary, or you'll have to pay a licensing fee to the first company to patent the use of the standard format. It's absurd!
-Dan
More letters coming on Friday! Meanwhile, share your own thoughts by commenting below or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/19/2009 at 1:17 PM0 comments
I've long toyed with using a Mac as a full-time work machine and running Windows on a home machine or two just to stay current. The only problem (besides shelling out big bucks for the honor of using a Mac) is Entourage. While this is a pretty good system, it ain't quite Outlook, which is my corporate standard.
Now, my only excuse is not wanting to shell out big bucks for the honor of using a Mac. That's because the next rev of Office for the Mac will dump Entourage for a newly built Outlook.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/19/2009 at 1:17 PM1 comments
On Monday, I told you about a court order preventing the sale of Word in the U.S., an order that I believe doesn't actually go into effect for a few months.
If you thought Microsoft was going to take this lying down, then you know nothing about how this firm operates. It doesn't take anything lying down, not even a nap. That's why it's no surprise that Microsoft is going back to court, trying to reverse the ruling tout de suite.
There's no saying when or if a stay will be ordered, but emergency motions such as this tend to get heard fast.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/19/2009 at 1:17 PM2 comments
Windows 7 may be getting all the headlines due to consumer excitement, but many in IT are far more interested in Windows Server 2008 R2, which is now ready, willing and able for download at TechNet and MSDN. You can even test it out for the next half-year by getting an evaluation license.
The 64-bit server software has Live Migration, so VMs can be moved on the fly, as well as storage swapping, so the same thing can happen with disks.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/19/2009 at 1:17 PM1 comments
Now this is a mindblower: A Canadian company beat the barrister-packed Microsoft and as a result, Word will no longer be for sale in America in two months. It sounds nuts, but i4i LP owns an XML patent which da judge ruled Word violates.
The ruling awards gives i4i a cool $290 million -- a drop in the old Redmond bucket. It looks like Microsoft may appeal, but my guess is it will pull out a few moneybags and toss 'em i4i's way.
Much more importantly, though, the decision goes right to the core of Word, the .DOCX file format (which I avoid, preferring to save in older .DOC formats). Do you like the XML-based .DOCX file format, or are you upset that only other Word 2007 users can open them unless they have a translator? Yeses and nos equally welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/17/2009 at 1:17 PM16 comments
After 25 years as an IT journalist, I've seen a million patent and copyright lawsuits like the one from i4i. Often, a patent holder demands royalties. Sometimes they get a part of what they ask for, and sometimes they get beaten down by high-priced lawyers.
Some of these claims are legit. If I invented something that an IBM or Oracle used, I'd want some scratch. In other cases, entrepreneurs buy up patents then go after anyone that even comes close to infringing.
That may be the case with Gary Odom, a former Microsoft worker who is now seeking big Microsoft bucks. Apparently, Odom's job in Redmond was to protect Microsoft from these suits, and as part of his contract he agreed not to sue Microsoft himself. Instead, Odom snagged patents that he now claims Office 2007 and its ribbon interface violate.
Microsoft is a big company, and if it can handle the U.S. government, it can handle Odom. But one third party confided in me recently that Odom was, until recently, going after them. This startup needed money for development, marketing and sales. Instead, they were looking at monster legal fees. Odom let them off the hook, but apparently is still going after Microsoft third parties, especially in the development space.
When IBM was threatened with a similar suit, it quickly moved to indemnify customers and, I believe, partners. I'd love to see Microsoft do the same here! As it stands, a trial is set for next year, my source reports.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/17/2009 at 1:17 PM2 comments
Microsoft should be happy that millions of people are using IE 6 instead of Chrome or Firefox. But that's just not enough for the IE product team. They want you on the latest and what they believe is the greatest. There's a big push to move users up to IE 8 to take advantage of vastly improved security.
I myself made the move from Firefox to IE 8 and despite a few weird behaviors (from the browser, not me), I'm basically satisfied.
Many users have little choice but to upgrade as Microsoft update services forces the upgrade upon them. But others have no admin rights and can't make the swap, and still others have older apps that may not work in the new browser. Microsoft is hoping to help third parties and corporations adapt these old apps to IE 8 -- but in this tough economy, I'm not sure if this is a top priority.
Do you use an older browser, and if so, why and which one? Share your thoughts in an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/17/2009 at 1:17 PM3 comments