Topic: Vista/Office questions.

[gpw11]

Ok, so the new laptop I bought has come pre-loaded with Vista Home Premium.  I won't have my hands on it tomorrow but I'm just thinking about what kind of productivity software I should throw on there.  Office 2007 would be ideal, and if I can get a student licence for a steep discount I'll probably go that way, but I don't think my current version of Office 2007 will work with Vista  . 

All that aside, I'm looking at either using the pre-loaded MS works (which I know very little about except that one of my roomates at UofC used it and I was of the opinion that it sucked at the time) or Star Office.  I guess the main issue for me is that some of the political economics courses I take require reports to be emailed in as a .doc.  With Office 2007 this isn't a problem as I can save it as such, and I seem to remember I had no problem doing so with previous versions of Star Office, but is the current implimentation of Star Office up there with Word 2007 (which I'm actually now quite fond of - the ribbon GUI is pretty brilliant for MS)?  Beyond that, will older (IE 2003) versions of Office work under Vista?

[Quemaqua]

I can't speak to any of that, but what about OpenOffice?  That's always suited my needs well enough, even if it lacks just a layer or so of the extra polish.  Free, functional, quite complete, and (importantly) supports .doc along with a a bunch of other stuff.  I don't know if that's an option for you, but it's worth checking out if you haven't yet.

[gpw11]

Ah yes, sorry.   When I say Star Office I actually mean Open Office.  That's pretty much what I'm probably going to end up doing until I get sick of trying to use their spreadsheet and database software and have to drop roughly $120 on a student licence of Office Pro.  Then again, I haven't used Access or Excel in so long that it probably won't be any better.

[scottws]

OpenOffice is a lot more like Microsoft Office 2003 than Microsoft Office 2007 in terms of interface.  Note that OpenOffice does not yet support Office 2007 files (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx).  However, it can open and save files into Microsoft Office '97-2002 formats (don't think it can save 2003 format yet, but it can open it).  One of my professors said 2007 support is coming probably late this year or early next year.

I think OpenOffice works great individually, but there are some compatibility issues.  I don't think animations in OpenOffice Impress presentations (saved as Powerpoint compatible .ppt files) work if opened in Microsoft Powerpoint.  Also, I don't suggest doing any collaborative groupwork with Microsoft Office users.  I did a group Powerpoint presentation once where I used Impress and everyone else used Powerpoint and it was screwed up.  Not screwed up as in corrupted or unusable, but the bullet points were all different and it was not fixable without recreating the whole slide in either Impress or Powerpoint.

I've also had trouble in the past where when I pasted images into a document and saved it in Office '97-2002 format (.doc), it wouldn't show up when opened In Microsoft Word.  It did show up in OpenOffice Writer, so I didn't know of the problem until I got a zero on the assignment for having a blank document.  I think this has been fixed since though.

That said, I have both Microsoft Office 2007 Ultimate and OpenOffice 2.3, and I use OpenOffice almost exclusively.

And $120?!  Your school's student license agreement sucks.  I think I could probably get it for like $10-15.  I got Vista Ultimate x86 for something like that.  I have a retail copy of Office 2007 Utlimate.

Edit:  Another note:  I don't think OpenOffice Base and Microsoft Access are compatible with each other, unlike most of the other applications.

[gpw11]

And $120?!  Your school's student license agreement sucks.  I think I could probably get it for like $10-15.  I got Vista Ultimate x86 for something like that.  I have a retail copy of Office 2007 Utlimate.

Edit:  Another note:  I don't think OpenOffice Base and Microsoft Access are compatible with each other, unlike most of the other applications.

Yeah, both schools I'm enrolled in have horrible licence agreements.  I don't know if it's a Canadian thing or what.  Um, hook a brother up .

As for base and access not being compatible, that's a bitch and that might make my decision for me.

[NatchDan]

My 'top came with Vista and a demo of Office too, along with Works. I use Works for pretty much everything and it does fine, though opening a Works Word .doc in Word proper makes the formatting go a bit odd if you had lots of it.

[Xessive]

I can confirm that Office 2003 works with Vista. It was our office's official suite and when I got the new laptop (which came preloaded with Vista) it worked perfectly fine on it. I have upgraded to Office 2007 since.

OpenOffice is impressive. It gets the job done, it's portable (compared to MS Office), and it's free!

The only reason I haven't switched completely to OpenOffice is that it doesn't read/edit .docx or .pptm files (Office 2007 specific).

[JacksRag(e)]

If you do happen to go the Office 2007 route, remember when you save to save in the .doc format and not the default .docx format.  That really messed me up when I had a paper to print out at school and I hadn't yet realized the paper was in .docx format.  Buh

[Xessive]

If you do happen to go the Office 2007 route, remember when you save to save in the .doc format and not the default .docx format.  That really messed me up when I had a paper to print out at school and I hadn't yet realized the paper was in .docx format.  Buh

Yeah, that whole file format mess was really frustrating!

We were running Office 2003 in the office and had a lot of trouble when clients and partners would send us .docx or .pptm files. Thankfully MS released the Office 2007 File Compatibility Pack. Use this to view and open Office 2007 files if you have an older version of Office.

[scottws]

Apparently there are also three ODF plugins for Microsoft Office, both used to open OpenOffice stuff.  One is released by Microsoft, and the other is an open source project, and the third is from Sun Microsystems.

And gpw11, why would Access/Base be the sticking point?  I can't remember exactly, but aren't you in engineering or something like that (I remember you being interested in AutoCAD)?  What do you need Access for.  I think Access is horrible as a database, but I do suppose you can use it as a front-end for Microsoft SQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Oracle.  I'm not even sure how that's done though.  (BTW Base can do that same thing minus the Microsoft SQL support).

[shock]

I didn't know people even used Access.  Crazy.

I have been using OpenOffice only for about 2 years as an undergrad and I have been nothing but pleased.  Granted I am doing my undergrad and rarely am required to use anything but word processing, but it's still pretty impressive.

[Cobra951]

My catalog of movies I have is an Access file.

So I take it I couldn't simply install my current copy of Office (2003) under Vista?  That alone would be enough reason for me to avoid it.  I already had enough reasons anyway.  Open Office seems like the way to go in the future, when I start getting files that I can't read with Office under XP.

[scottws]

Office 2003 works on Vista:

I can confirm that Office 2003 works with Vista. It was our office's official suite and when I got the new laptop (which came preloaded with Vista) it worked perfectly fine on it.

[Cobra951]

Doh!  Missed that altogether.  Thanks.

[gpw11]

Apparently there are also three ODF plugins for Microsoft Office, both used to open OpenOffice stuff.  One is released by Microsoft, and the other is an open source project, and the third is from Sun Microsystems.

And gpw11, why would Access/Base be the sticking point?  I can't remember exactly, but aren't you in engineering or something like that (I remember you being interested in AutoCAD)?  What do you need Access for.  I think Access is horrible as a database, but I do suppose you can use it as a front-end for Microsoft SQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Oracle.  I'm not even sure how that's done though.  (BTW Base can do that same thing minus the Microsoft SQL support).

You know, now that I think about it I could probably get away from Access.  I was thinking I'd need it for two reasons; first, I used to use it a fair bit in my first degree, but when I was just thinking about it, the last few courses I'm finishing up in that are more theory based and won't require a database at all. 

The second degree is a Bachelor of Technology in Const. Management (I'm fairly certain there's only one school in north america which offers this), which requires a certain degree of engineering and design principles (hence autoCAD), and contains certain elements more typically associated with finance, commerce, and things you'd generally cover in a BBA/BCom.  I've always used Access as a component of a few programs I'd put together to compile amortization, risk management, and liability reports. I'm sure, however, there's a better way to do that, Accesss + Excel is just the way I've learned (and partially forgot).

Thanks for bringing that up, because it totally made me realize Access is in no way a neccesity.  If I can find a disk for my old copy of Office 2003 I'll probably do that just to avoid the formating issues that may arise (and the bitch of relearning another spreadsheet program), but other than that I don't really have a problem using Open Office. 

[scottws]

You're a brave soul.  I hate Access.  I used to want to be a DBA until I took a database class that used Access.

Regarding OpenOffice Calc (the spreadsheet program) goes, it's very similar to Excel.  Formulas and everything.

As far as your school being the only one to offer that degree...

http://www.uc.edu/cas/majors.aspx

[gpw11]

Well that's interesting.  I wonder why some administrators go off about that so much then.  Actually, the curriculum looks a bit different, but I think I might like that one more.  The co-op would be sweet, and the six year dual degree program is a great idea (although something like that is implemented here, I believe the second degree is actually a masters and a shit ton of work).  I guess the major difference is that the program offered here isn't really meant for first year undergrads or high school kids, but requires at least two years of prior post secondary and quite a bit of relevant work experience in order to even be accepted into the four year program.  It's also a Btech instead of a BSc, although BSc certainly looks better on paper. 

BTW, what's the average salary in the States?  Because that $43,285 is less than I make now and far less than I'd make if I took a project management position.

[gpw11]

Ok, so having checked into it, the version of Office I can get for roughly $120 is the $600+ version.  That makes a bit more sense I guess. Nevertheless, I'll probably stick with 2003 for now and think about if it's worth it.  I'd generally say no, but there are actually some pretty sweet features in 2007 that actually help.

[Cobra951]

That any version of Office goes for $600 makes my mouth hang open just a bit.

[Ghandi]

Yeah, it is insane. Students get a discount, at least. I assume that's what gpw was referring to when he mentioned the $120 price tag.

[scottws]

Yeah, the Ultimate Edition.  I have it.  Most of the stuff is worthless for the average person.

[gpw11]

Interestingly enough, it looks like this is MS' new business model - which is just retarded.  There are 8 versions of Office out there, ranging from Basic (Word, Excel, Outlook) to Ultimate/Enterprise which both have 13 total programs (although the load out varies).  Usefull ones: Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Publisher, Onenote (actually pretty rad), and arguably Outlook if you have a portable device that can sync to it.  I've taken Access of that list, but that still leaves 7-8 programs which are weak or I have no idea what they do (Infopath?  Groove?).  That's kind of retarded.


Wait, I just noticed that the last two 2-3 rows  on the chart I'm looking at right now aren't actually programs, but features that they decided to mix in there.  Please adjust numbers accordingly.  Oh, and mixed Vista impressions to follow in either this or another post.  Just because I know you all care.

[JacksRag(e)]

Well, if still interested, Microsoft is selling Office 2007 for $60 to students that can verify their current enrollment.  Not a bad price.

[gpw11]

Nice call.  I actually just found out that the software store at one of my schools just doesn't list most of their products on the online store, so if I go in they should have other versions of Office for cheaper.  Awesome. 

All that aside, two somewhat related questions;

1.) Is 64 bit Vista any faster?  It's not that the x86 version is slow, it's just that if there's a benefit to the x64 version why not use it since I'm not playing games and can't imagine any driver issues.

2.) So, I bought this laptop for $499 ($300 off) and it's awesome.  Yet, I just found out that a large retailer here is having a clearance sale on the same brand laptop for that model line with insane deals....like stupid deals.  I probably wouldn't have gotten anything all that cheaper without sacrificing some power, but I probably could have got more for the same price.  Not a huge deal and these things happen (yet you can't wait forever), but still something I'm going to bitch about.  Oh, and laptop remotes are sweet.

[Xessive]

I was checking out a 64bit version of Vista and the main thing I noticed was it had trouble with certain applications. For example Photoshop CS3 refuses to work on it. I didn't bother with anything else after that since PS is my bread n' butter; without it an OS is useless to me.

I'm sure Microsoft Office would work on it though.

According to some benchmarks I peeked at some time last year it seemed that any benefit of using the x64 version was minuscule and practically irrelevant. I don't know if much has changed over the last 6-7 months.

[scottws]

1.) Is 64 bit Vista any faster?  It's not that the x86 version is slow, it's just that if there's a benefit to the x64 version why not use it since I'm not playing games and can't imagine any driver issues.

The only true benefit of x64 Vista over x86 is the fact that Windows will see past 3GB of RAM.  With x86, Windows only sees just around 3GB, and that includes virtual memory.  It's not faster or slower.  Though if you're going to get a new OS, I would go x64 at this time because I guarantee you in 4 or 5 years or so, stuff is going to want that much RAM and you'll be kicking yourself for not going to x64 sooner.

It's a transition period for sure, but you have to make the switch at some point.  Don't be worried about drivers.  I found 64-bit drivers for all my stuff:  Logitech G5 mouse, Logitech QuickCam Pro  5000 webcam, Xbox 360 Wireless Gaming Adapter, nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS, HP PhotoSmart C3180 printer, Gigabyte GN-WP01GS wireless network card, motherboard drivers, onboard sound drivers, etc. etc. etc.

I use Vista x64, and I've had problems, but nothing that was isolated to the x64 version.  They were all just general Vista problems.

Can I ask you though, why do you want to switch to Vista?  I don't recommend it at this point.  XP is the superior operating system.

I was checking out a 64bit version of Vista and the main thing I noticed was it had trouble with certain applications. For example Photoshop CS3 refuses to work on it. I didn't bother with anything else after that since PS is my bread n' butter; without it an OS is useless to me.

That's weird.  I wonder why that is because I use Photoshop CS2 with no problems.  A Google search did turn up issues, but there is a workaround to get it to work:

http://blogs.msdn.com/rickbrew/archive/2007/04/26/problems-installing-adobe-photoshop-cs3-on-vista-x64.aspx

There are reports that I saw that some people had no trouble running Photoshop CS3 on Vista x64.

I'm sure Microsoft Office would work on it though.

Yes, as I have said, I run Office 2007 Ultimate just fine.

[Cobra951]

Won't we have the next iteration of Windows in 4-5 years?  We had a conversation here not long ago about how MS is already working on it.  They can't be too proud of Vista.  I'm skipping it altogether, if I can.

[JacksRag(e)]

I think the timeframe was that Windows 7 would be out around 2010..or something like that.

[Cobra951]

OK, so Scott's comment about needing 4 GB of RAM and up in 4 to 5 years is covered, without 64-bit XP or Vista.  That was my feeling.

[gpw11]

Can I ask you though, why do you want to switch to Vista?  I don't recommend it at this point.  XP is the superior operating system.

Shipped with Vista Home Premium and I believe I can register for a free 64-bit version.  I was just wondering if it was worth it.  I'm not going to roll back to XP because it's too much work and my actual desktop is what I use for entertainment purposes anyways.

[scottws]

Well yeah, you can probably get a free 64-bit edition.  But it would be a reformat/reinstall.  At that point I would just put XP on it rather than Vista x64.

[Xessive]

That's weird.  I wonder why that is because I use Photoshop CS2 with no problems.  A Google search did turn up issues, but there is a workaround to get it to work:

http://blogs.msdn.com/rickbrew/archive/2007/04/26/problems-installing-adobe-photoshop-cs3-on-vista-x64.aspx

There are reports that I saw that some people had no trouble running Photoshop CS3 on Vista x64.

Thanks Scott. I'm sure there will be official fixes soon enough.

I wonder, will the next iteration of Windows be strictly x64? I hope by the time it comes out a decision regarding 'moving forward' will have been made.

[gpw11]

Well yeah, you can probably get a free 64-bit edition.  But it would be a reformat/reinstall.  At that point I would just put XP on it rather than Vista x64.

Oh, it totally would be, but if XP 64 had any major benefits (apart from the higher maximum RAM limitation) I'd probably hit that up just for the hell of having it.  As it is I'll probably just leave Vista x86 on there and maybe do a dual boot with either OSX or Linux to toy around with.  Don't get me wrong, XP is totally the way to go, but for what I use my laptop for Vista is fine and some of the little features are actually pretty cool.

What isn't pretty cool, however, is the horrible fucking job Microsoft did when setting up a home network between XP and Vista.  Vista has no problem using the network for the internet, and my XP machines see my laptop (but can't access it), yet my laptop can't see my XP machines or the printer.  All on the same work group, it's in 'private mode' (which apparently it's supposed to be), and everything else seems correct, but I can't get it at all.  Fuck it, I'm using a flash drive if I need to print something directly off of it.

[scottws]

Windows networking sucks, basically.

You can check the following thread for tips.

http://www.overwritten.net/forum/index.php?topic=3072.0

[Cobra951]

Windows networking sucks, basically.

I'm so glad to hear it wasn't just my ineptitude with it.