The standard edition of Office 2003 will not allow an organization to create a custom XML schema that it can publish and share with its partners, Smiley said. That feature will be available in only the professional and enterprise versions of the product. In the less expensive, standard version, information saved in XML will be stored in the Microsoft native XML schema, a schema that up until now Microsoft has not published.
There’s no way around it. Microsoft Office 2003, the upgrade to Microsoft’s productivity suite set to be released in the second half of this year, is a “tweener.” It is not a major upgrade that ushers in a new era of features and functionality, but it does provide a number of welcome enhancements, especially for enterprise users.
Office 2003 has some compelling elements that will entice many enterprises to evaluate and test drive it, even though few may eventually plunk down cash for the upgrade. The most significant of those elements is the suite’s support for Extensible Markup Language (XML), a de facto standard data format for Web services. By supporting XML, Microsoft is adding a whole new twist to Office, one that will eventually take the suite far from its original roots.
News source: NewsFactor
There’s no way around it. Microsoft Office 2003, the upgrade to Microsoft’s productivity suite set to be released in the second half of this year, is a “tweener.” It is not a major upgrade that ushers in a new era of features and functionality, but it does provide a number of welcome enhancements, especially for enterprise users.
Office 2003 has some compelling elements that will entice many enterprises to evaluate and test drive it, even though few may eventually plunk down cash for the upgrade. The most significant of those elements is the suite’s support for Extensible Markup Language (XML), a de facto standard data format for Web services. By supporting XML, Microsoft is adding a whole new twist to Office, one that will eventually take the suite far from its original roots.
News source: NewsFactor
Changelog:
Diskeeper build 430 adds support for Windows Server 2003, and includes performance and reliability improvements to the boot-time defragmentation engines.
Please Note: On a small number of Windows XP systems, running a boot-time defragmentation may result in a Windows message being displayed after the post-defragmentation reboot indicating that the system did not start up properly. This is sometimes followed by a CHKDSK operation, which finds no disk errors. We are investigating the cause of this message, but at this time no system that has displayed this startup screen or run a post-defragmentation CHKDSK has demonstrated any problems. You can simply use the default "Start Windows Normally" option, or let the timer time-out. Your system will then boot up normally.
Also Note: The Diskeeper NTFS boot-time engines have been modified in this build to verify they have exclusive access to the volume being defragmented. This change ensures that no other drivers or services can modify the volume while the boot-time defragmentation is running. If the volume cannot be locked, an error message appears describing this and the boot-time defragmentation will not run.
There is no way in hell I am paying $500+ again for an Office suite that is outdated in 2 years usually.
For my $500, I'll take 2 Free Pirated Versions, i.e. XP and 2003 in addition to 2000, that way I feel like I got my money's worth
Just because you bought Office 2000 does NOT give you the right to copy Office 2003, if you want a copy of this then pay up again.
Just because MS upgrade their softare doesn't mean you have to have it, do you for example need to upgrade your TV when ever the manufacturer upgrades the spec, or do you expect that for free to ?
And when it's features that I need, yes, I do need to upgrade. And I upgraded my TV only after it broke after 25 years of use
You goody two-shoe types...*sigh*.
If you don't want to pay for it then don't it isn't my problem, I admit Microsoft won't go bust as people will buy it and we all know Microsoft will not lower the prices if everyone bought a legit copy so I am not saying you are keeping the prices high (I do agree that more people would pay if it was cheaper).
</rant>
There is no way in hell I am paying $500+ again for an Office suite that is outdated in 2 years usually.
For my $500, I'll take 2 Free Pirated Versions, i.e. XP and 2003 in addition to 2000, that way I feel like I got my money's worth
So that means that if I can't afford the latest model of a car I can go and steal it because I can't afford it does it?
If you steal a car from a stealership or what not, that company has _lost_ a car. That car generally cannot be recovered. Whereas pirating software is different, the copyright holder does not 'lose' a copy of the software, because software doesn't 'exist.' I'm not arguing the morality of either argument, just that yours isn't relevant.
No, he mean you can produce a brand new clone of the car for free if you can't afford it. :-)
Copying software isn't stealing in THAT meaning of the word. Illegally copying software is copyright infringement. Since companies say they lose money on those activities, they compare it to stealing. Actually, the part about loosing money on it isn't really 100% true either, since many I know including myself wouldn't buy some software if they couldn't "warez" it, especially software updates like this one. They don't lose a dime in these cases. The problem with BSA's and similar antipiracy organizations assumptions is that they usually assume that 100% of pirated software is lost revenue. This is definitely not true, since lots of currently pirated software wouldn't be bought if it couldn't be pirated. If I couldn't pirate Office 2003, I would stick with Office XP which came with my computer. So they aren't losing any revenues if I would choose to pirate Office 2003, since there's no way in hell I would buy it even if they made a 100% proof copy protection.
Anyway, you're not TAKING anything from them "physically". You're producing a brand new copy. Still illegal though since it's copyrighted material.
Sorry if I'm picky, but I'm just getting tired of these kinds of poor analogies.
If you're stupid enough to think you have the right to copy software, that's bad enough. To do this with this mindset when you have a product geared for you sitting in store shelves for less than eighty dollars is just plain retarded.
Oh, and if you're still stubborn and dumb enough to think that Office is for you, no one's putting a gun to your head to upgrade. I know people who are still using Office 95. They don't seem to be complaining.
If you're gonna copy software, do it. If you're gonna try to justify it, go jump off a bridge, because it'd be a better use of your time.
Amen!
Yes, and the argument all starts when some idiot tries to justify it, or starts claiming it's his right.
If you're gonna copy a CD, do it and keep your mouth shut. We don't need to hear some uninformed crap about how the price gives you the right to do it. And it's just irresistible to point out that Mr. Black is pirating a piece of software he doesn't even want.
And I'm not rationalizing stealing. Yes, It's not right. I do what I want, and you do what you want. Buy it. Copy it. Steal it. It's your choice, and my choice is my own.
Office is for the office, you idiot. Have you read the product description lately?
And how about Works?
Yes, there is a student version of Office, but it's cheap. Nowhere near $500. You lose.
Oh, is that so? Are you sure you were the same person who said, "I pirate it because some people like me cannot afford it and companies should lower prices?"
Microsoft shouldn't have to lower prices because dumbasses like you are too stupid to read the product descriptions.
Some companies (MSFT included) offer student versions of the program which are basically the home edition for a lower price - still a good deal. They might also bundle the PRO version but leave out some features. I'd check w/ MSFT first to make sure.
Intelliscense in the code window..weeeeeeeeeeee
I'd highly recommend a real web editor like Dreamweaver MX for those even considering Frontpage 2003.
I'd highly recommend you freakin' use FrontPage 2003 before you spew out some uninformed bullsh*t about how it sucks. No, FrontPage does not create ugly and bloated code anymore. If you used it, you would notice the improvement.
For the moment, I'll stick with Dreamweaver MX for its XHTML features, but FrontPage is close behind now.
I'd highly recommend a real web editor like Dreamweaver MX for those even considering Frontpage 2003.
ppl can use what they feel like ....so shut up
Also, InfoPath and OneNote won't be inluded with any of the retail verions of Office 2003. InfoPath will only be available in the Professional Enterprise Edition, and OneNote, just like FrontPage, will only be a available as a standalone product.
(my MSFT stock will be rising soon... The empire strikes back... muhahahah)
Is Microsoft Office 2003 Worth the Upgrade?
No
I've also send resumes and the HR people send me an e-mail saying "We will only accept Word documents".
Sigh. Guess I have to stick w/ Office for now.
And about OpenOffice - they can import most Word and Excel documents without any problems. And export too I think. If not, you can use the RTF format instead, at least with OfficeXP/2k3 installed it will have the same icon, and no one will know the difference.
Also, Gnumeric now works close to perfect with Excel(screenshots are old).
IMHO, if I have OfficeXP, Office2k3 is worrth a $50 upgrade price. Which there won't be anyway.
Last edited by 31461 on 22 Jul 2003 - 18:49
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.