Dear Morons,
Office 2007 sucks to three decimal places.
Now, I will concede that (apparently) the new version can do all kinds of clever things. That's what your marketing people tell us, anyway, and I can't think of any instance in the past when they've made overblown claims with no factual basis. No, really.
But you've gone the extra mile and made it look different. The official view is that everything is now arranged much more logically and is easier to find, spread out in full view over various ribbons. But WHY??
I even concede that one interface is pretty well like another, and if this is what it had looked like 15 years ago when I started using Windows then I wouldn't have batted an eyelid. In fact I would be as irritated as I am now if you had suddenly started to use a strange system of drop-down menus for the latest release. But here's the rub. In those 15 years I've picked up the basics of Office pretty well. I know its strengths and I know its weaknesses. I know exactly how much I can achieve with it and I know - I knew - how to achieve it without even thinking about it.
And no, I'm not going to quietly unlearn 15 years of experience just because you lot think I should. It's your job to keep up with me, not vice versa. At my level of usership you haven't made a single improvement with your mindless tinkering.
Even this wouldn't be an issue if you could have an option to display the old menus. You even do this with Windows, kindly giving us the option of New SuperDuper Windows Look or Classic Windows look. Why not do the same for Office?
This is actually possible, a quick Google tells me: there is an add-on that I can purchase that will bring back the old menus. But I don't want to pay for what should come for free, and if I did I very much doubt IT Support would install it for me. (You may guess from mention of IT Support that this is a work-based problem. Home runs Office 97 just fine, thanks very much, and has no intention of changing.)
Fiddling with software is a bit like the age of consent at 16. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Fogeyishly,
Ben
PS anyone leaving a comment that even hints at the existence of OpenOffice will receive a cold, hard stare.
Showing posts with label software. Show all posts
Showing posts with label software. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Firefox is fired
Thanks to Semicolon for alerting me to a page that explains some of the improvements in Firefox 3. Yeah, okay, improvements. I admit it.
But the fact was the font rendering of some sites was simply unacceptable. And this was the official release, for crying out loud - how bad was it for the beta testers? Anyway, I'm now back on Firefox 2 and here I shall stay until it's fixed.
All credit to Mozilla, the uninstall feature includes an option to tell them why you're uninstalling - and then it displays the reasons to date. Which, as of 21.40 on 22 June are:
But the fact was the font rendering of some sites was simply unacceptable. And this was the official release, for crying out loud - how bad was it for the beta testers? Anyway, I'm now back on Firefox 2 and here I shall stay until it's fixed.
All credit to Mozilla, the uninstall feature includes an option to tell them why you're uninstalling - and then it displays the reasons to date. Which, as of 21.40 on 22 June are:
- Performance (load delays, memory usage) 15393
- Hard to use/confusing (menus, display, etc.) 11969
- Missing features 11189
- Security 8358
- Some features didn't work 13792
- Printing 6094
- Plugin compatibility (Flash, Adobe Acrobat, Windows Media Player, etc.) 12377
- Some web pages wouldn't work 21951
- Just temporary, I'm planning to install Firefox again soon 14659
- Other 22943
Software development and the democratic mandate
Two facts of life are there that really bug me.
One is the way that over time each release of a particular type of software becomes bigger and bigger, more and more bloated. I can remember (children) when a perfectly reasonable Windows-based word processor would install off floppies - floppies! - rather than a minimum of one CD. Exactly the same Word file can weigh in at approx. 30k (if I work on it at home) or 45k (if I work on it at work), due to the different versions of Office used. And so on. Fill in your own examples.
The other is the way that the longer a government stays in power, the more it has to fiddle with what already works perfectly well. And when you have what was already a pretty fiddlesome government by nature right at the start, 11 years later its fiddling is endemic. As m'friend David recently pointed out, Labour is now driven to fiddling with its own previous fiddles, so urgent is their need to appear to be doing stuff. But they're hardly unique in this. Just cast your mind back to the last days of Thatcher.
And therein lies the problem. It's not what needs doing, it's what they think it would be nice to be doing, and what they can do, so hey, let's do it. Look busy! In the fifteen or so years that I have been a Word user, I don't think there is a single feature that I regularly use that wasn't available right from the start; whereas, I can't think of a single new feature that I use at all. No, I tell a lie. The ability to have more than one document open at once is useful. But that's all. And I cannot think of one way that New Labour has improved my life.
All this comes from having downloaded Firefox 3 yesterday. I'm sure it does everything it says on the packet - makes my computer more secure, opens web pages quicker, etc. It also has - wait for it - a "back" button that is bigger than the "forward" button! Because - wait for it - users use the "back" button more! Gee-whillickers! This is as revolutionary, and as necessary, as increasing the size of the door handles on doors that I use most often. Thanks, I really feel I can work this out. The human brain is meant to have vast areas of unused memory so I might as well apply all that processing power to something.
Click on the address bar to enter a new URL and instead of what you used to get - a list of previously entered URLs, in declining order of likelihood - you get the URLs, plus their page titles, plus some kind of star rating that I'm sure I'll work out. Thanks again. I was the one who looked at those pages, I know what they are, I don't need their titles and I certainly don't need to know what my computer thought of them.
And meanwhile, to counter all these "advantages", when Best Beloved or I try to use our work webmail accounts, the screen now displays the messages in some ghastly unicode lookalike rather than a decent typeface. I would gladly trade all the star-rated URLs for the ability to check email without my eyes watering.
Fiddle, fiddle, fiddle.
One is the way that over time each release of a particular type of software becomes bigger and bigger, more and more bloated. I can remember (children) when a perfectly reasonable Windows-based word processor would install off floppies - floppies! - rather than a minimum of one CD. Exactly the same Word file can weigh in at approx. 30k (if I work on it at home) or 45k (if I work on it at work), due to the different versions of Office used. And so on. Fill in your own examples.
The other is the way that the longer a government stays in power, the more it has to fiddle with what already works perfectly well. And when you have what was already a pretty fiddlesome government by nature right at the start, 11 years later its fiddling is endemic. As m'friend David recently pointed out, Labour is now driven to fiddling with its own previous fiddles, so urgent is their need to appear to be doing stuff. But they're hardly unique in this. Just cast your mind back to the last days of Thatcher.
And therein lies the problem. It's not what needs doing, it's what they think it would be nice to be doing, and what they can do, so hey, let's do it. Look busy! In the fifteen or so years that I have been a Word user, I don't think there is a single feature that I regularly use that wasn't available right from the start; whereas, I can't think of a single new feature that I use at all. No, I tell a lie. The ability to have more than one document open at once is useful. But that's all. And I cannot think of one way that New Labour has improved my life.
All this comes from having downloaded Firefox 3 yesterday. I'm sure it does everything it says on the packet - makes my computer more secure, opens web pages quicker, etc. It also has - wait for it - a "back" button that is bigger than the "forward" button! Because - wait for it - users use the "back" button more! Gee-whillickers! This is as revolutionary, and as necessary, as increasing the size of the door handles on doors that I use most often. Thanks, I really feel I can work this out. The human brain is meant to have vast areas of unused memory so I might as well apply all that processing power to something.
Click on the address bar to enter a new URL and instead of what you used to get - a list of previously entered URLs, in declining order of likelihood - you get the URLs, plus their page titles, plus some kind of star rating that I'm sure I'll work out. Thanks again. I was the one who looked at those pages, I know what they are, I don't need their titles and I certainly don't need to know what my computer thought of them.
And meanwhile, to counter all these "advantages", when Best Beloved or I try to use our work webmail accounts, the screen now displays the messages in some ghastly unicode lookalike rather than a decent typeface. I would gladly trade all the star-rated URLs for the ability to check email without my eyes watering.
Fiddle, fiddle, fiddle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)