backtop

Print 83 comment(s) - last by Pirks.. on Jul 4 at 10:46 AM

Microsoft officially takes Office to the cloud
Office 365 or Google Apps, which is right for you

Microsoft has been talking up its cloud software future and trying to compete with Google Docs for quite some time. Microsoft dominates in productivity software with its Office suite that is used by a huge number of general consumers and enterprise users. As more and more businesses migrate from buying expensive software each year to using a cloud-based service with continual updates for a monthly subscription, Microsoft wants its part of that market as well.

Steve Ballmer said early this month that Microsoft Office 365 would launch in June, and he stuck to his word. Office 365 is the cloud-based version of the productivity software and is available for small and mid-size businesses. The service is pay as you go and the official pricing has now been unveiled. Office 365 for professionals and small businesses starts at $6 monthly per user and offers email, calendar, contacts, a personal archive, and 25GB of mailbox storage with 35MB for attachments with Exchange online. 

It will allow the viewing and basic editing of documents using Office Web Apps as well as access and viewing of files from a mobile phone. The service also includes SharePoint Online to allow the design of a website, desktop Office to web versions. Other features include Lync Online for instant messaging, online meetings, and PC-to-PC online audio and video calls.

Enterprise firms can get the service starting at $10 per user per month up to $27 per user per month depending on the features wanted. The enterprise $10 plan appears to be the same as the small business plan. Starting at $16 monthly, users can create and edit documents using Office Web Apps with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote. At $24 monthly, the user gets all the features of the other plans and Office Professional Plus access, SharePoint Online advanced capabilities, and unlimited Exchange Online mail storage. A $27 monthly plan adds Lync Server on-premises to the offering.

Microsoft also offers a $2 monthly basic email plan. The competing Gmail service from Google is free. 

“Great collaboration is critical to business growth, and because it’s so important, we believe the best collaboration technology should be available to everyone,” said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. “With a few clicks, Office 365 levels the playing field, giving small and midsize businesses powerful collaboration tools that have given big businesses an edge for years.”

While Microsoft is making its Office 365 pricing public and taking new orders for the Service, Google and its competing Google Apps service are talking about why Google Apps is better. Google says that Office 365 is for individuals, while Google Apps is for teams. Google also notes that Office 365 is built for Windows-based PCs and Google Apps is built to work on just about any platform. Google Apps is also one price for everyone at $5 monthly with one plan and it has no contract.

Analyst Michael Silver from Gartner said of Office 365, "It [Office 365] puts Microsoft in a better position than they were -- they now have a broad product that they can more easily sell."
Office software is Microsoft's most profitable offering making $3 billion in the last quarter. Microsoft has smaller profits planned for its cloud offerings and views it as an effort to grab a larger slice of a company's tech spending overall.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
where is the $2 plan info?
By kleinma on 6/28/2011 1:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
Is the $2 basic email plan part of Office 365 or is it part of some other Microsoft offering? I don't see it anywhere on the 365 website.




RE: where is the $2 plan info?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/28/2011 2:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
It was briefly mentioned in the PR:

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2011/jun1...

quote:
Office 365 offers a range of service plans for a predictable monthly price from $2 to $27 per user per month.


Then Reuters said:

quote:
Microsoft said it will charge from $2 per user per month for basic email services to $27 per user per month for advanced offerings.


The "Office" stuff starts at $6/month/user


RE: where is the $2 plan info?
By kleinma on 6/28/2011 5:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm. I am just curious if the $2 plan gives you actual exchange email (with calendar and contacts) or if it is more in line with some type of beefed up hotmail offering.

For my own personal needs, I really just want exchange hosting for a small number of email accounts on a single domain. I don't need office apps in the cloud, sharepoint, or any of the other frills. I just love having exchange since I use outlook on my PC and Laptop, and I have an android phone (using google calendar sync and pop3, or using gmail to pull in my emails is NOT an option I can consider).

However I have several customers currently on 3rd party exchange hosts I plan to migrate to Office365 since the price is great for these small businesses. They are paying over 100 a month with intermedia, soon they will be paying around 50.


RE: where is the $2 plan info?
By StraightCashHomey on 6/28/2011 5:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
Office 365 is based off of an Exchange back end.


RE: where is the $2 plan info?
By Samus on 6/29/2011 2:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
The $2 plan is for a single hosted exchange mailbox. This is ideal for people with WM7/iOS/Android phones that want corporate push-mail on the cheap, much like service Blackberry provides.


RE: where is the $2 plan info?
By borismkv on 6/28/2011 7:49:24 PM , Rating: 3
The $2 plan is probably just POP3/IMAP access with your own @company.com address as opposed to @hotmail.com. The email side of it runs off an Exchange 2010 Hosted Mode system. More than likely, MAPI/Outlook Anywhere access with Outlook Calendaring and such probably runs about $15 dollars per user per month (Since that's the going rate, but MS may be undercutting their partners on it).


Google DOES have a fee for accounts too
By bravacentauri83 on 6/28/2011 10:41:41 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/featur...

People seem to forget that Google also offers the apps for the business market, and this will cost a fee. Sure the individual accounts are free, but businesses would need to pay if they want their information on Google Apps to be working almost 100% of the time.




RE: Google DOES have a fee for accounts too
By GuinnessKMF on 6/28/2011 11:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
Businesses don't want to see "almost 100%".

These costs are trivial when compared to the cost of support. Free software has its place and with some businesses it absolutely makes sense to use the appropriate free alternative, but in other businesses it's not worth the training and support to switch.


RE: Google DOES have a fee for accounts too
By Belard on 6/29/2011 11:26:56 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is 100%... not even MS-OFFice installed on your desktop is 100% available. A crash, a virus infection, etc.


By Dug on 6/29/2011 1:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
But you have control. Being able to recover from a crash, virus, etc. is going to effect Office 365 too. I can fix or reinstall Office, fix a machine. But if Office 365 goes down I have no control.


By Dug on 6/29/2011 1:50:56 PM , Rating: 4
Any of you arguing for free apps in the business world don't understand that the cost of the software is nothing.

All accounting software will work with Excel, not so with open office. What do you think the CFO is going to go with?

All new employees have been trained in Office. Not so with any free software.

It would take any where from a day to a week of training to train a new person. That cost alone is huge compared to $180 for an Office license.

Not to mention receiving files from other businesses that expect you to be able to work with that file and return without errors. You can not do this. Look at any open office forums and there are so many problems with conversions its not even funny. You will be looking for another job if you can't get stuff done fast.

Exchange servers are the norm. Outlook works with Exchange. All smartphones have active sync to work with Exchange.
Sharing files, calendars, sharepoint, etc are very powerful tools that just don't need to be changed to save a few bucks in initial cost.




By T2k on 6/29/2011 2:32:55 PM , Rating: 1
...they should be peddling this for FREE, just to get someone in.
Microsoft's online track record is probably the worst of the entire hosted service industry so I am very confused: why would anyone PAY to rely on a company with such a bad service history...?




Umm
By Motoman on 6/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Umm
By kleinma on 6/28/2011 1:50:12 PM , Rating: 5
Ever hear "you get what you pay for" ?

If all you are looking at is the $ and not a comparison of features, then I can see how it may not make sense to you.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/28/2011 3:55:53 PM , Rating: 5
That's because you always ignore comfort and convenience when you compare things. For you font selector in OpenOffice or Symphony is exactly the same as in MS Office, you just select fonts and that's it. It's a check mark feature for you, it "is" or it "is not", and you see nothing in between. For me and many other people (including all the comfort loving Apple tards) there are many more shades of grey, not just your black or white, "is" or "is not" attitude. I can easily see that font selector in MS Office 2007 and 2010 was done by human user interface experts, this is why it's a pleasure to use, while font selector in those open offices is a pile of garbage. Yes, it allows you to select fonts, so formally it exists, formally it definitely is a "feature" and why would you pay for the MS version of the same feature if you can get the free one, right?

This is exactly the same with all the other things.

A few examples to illustrate.

Me: why would I pay $200 for a screamy deafeningly noisy Chinese vacuum cleaner when I can get a silent Miele vacuum for extra $200?
Motoman: what? what are you doing man? these are both same vacuum cleaners, it's just Miele marketing tells you Miele vacuums are "magical", this is why you pay double the price! there is absolutely no noise difference between this cheap Chinese vacuum and that expensive Miele one! this is just marketing and predatory tactics

Me: why would I pay $20000 for basic Ford when I can pay $40000 for much more comfortable Lexus? I definitely feel more support from Lexus seats, my back doesn't get tired as fast as in Ford, I also like quietness inside, Ford is too noisy for my taste, and then Lexus has a few more airbags and safety features, I did my research thank you.
Motoman: are you dumb? why pay double for this stupid Lexus? this is all pure predatory tactics and marketing lies about Lexus "magic"! there is no Lexus magic, there is absolutely no difference between Ford seats and Lexus seats, no difference between Ford safety systems and Lexus safety systems, no difference in noise levels too.

And it goes on and on and on. I'm just summarizing my philosophy versus yours here. Not saying yours or mine are better.


RE: Umm
By Ringold on 6/28/2011 4:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can easily see that font selector in MS Office 2007 and 2010 was done by human user interface experts


That, and compatibility, are why I'm willing to part with a relatively tiny part of my income in return for something that pays dividends every single day, because though I may be an "average joe" in no particularly special part of the work force, I still end up spending a chunk of every work day, and most of my free days, in Word or Excel.

Which leads me to another thought. As the worlds revolving more around electronics, where are these "average joes" that dont need a well-featured office suite? Construction workers or something?

Anyway, I dont begrudge people that want to save a little money by using an inferior product. I drive a cheap car, etc, so I get it. But I wish those folks wouldn't toss stones at Office just because they dont personally see the need for the up-market product.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Umm
By wordsworm on 6/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/28/2011 10:34:27 PM , Rating: 1
Your eternal insistence that things are equal no matter how much you paid for them makes it clear as day that you are nothing more than an uneducated consumer who cares only about price and marketing feature checklist, and doesn't care about quality, design and comfort when you choose your product.


RE: Umm
By wordsworm on 6/28/2011 11:48:32 PM , Rating: 1
It seems to me that you're insisting that the emperor's new clothes are made out of gold. Twenty years ago, MS revolutionized the word processing world by making a simple product that could help folks put together basic documents. Today, it's not unique and has competition from companies that offer free office productivity software. It's true that I haven't used MS Office since 2003. At that time I made the switch to Open Office, and it's just as good.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/29/2011 12:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's just as good
ya ya I hear you. and Lada Kalina is just as good as Lexus too :))) sure, sure, wahtever :)) I tried both MS office and open offices and symphony etc, and you can keep all ya beliefs to yaself mate. my experience with all these offices tells me a different story.


RE: Umm
By Spuke on 6/28/2011 5:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And it goes on and on and on. I'm just summarizing my philosophy versus yours here. Not saying yours or mine are better.
This friggin sucks!! I totally agree with you here.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/28/2011 7:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
His statement you quoted was false, based on false analogies.

Opinions are fine...people who try to make "Factual" statements that aren't based in fact, or who try to deride me for making factual statements by claiming they aren't, are not fine.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/28/2011 7:05:37 PM , Rating: 1
Here we go with the false analogies again. Nothing you said up there is valid.

You're trying to compare things that are obviously mismatched. That's not the case.

And I've got plenty of "luxury" stuff about. For example, there a 40" LCD TV on the wall in the bedroom. By any stretch of the imagination, that's a luxury item...especially when you consider there's a 67" TV in the living room.

Your line of argument, though, would say that MS Office is that 40" LCD while Lotus Symphony (or WordPerfect Office or whatever) is a 20" CRT. And you accuse me, then, of saying something like "BLARG why pay moar for teh 40" teevee when joo can haz teh 20" tevee which is the same thing for only $50 BLARG!?"

The problem is that both MS Office and Lotus Symphony et al are 40" LCD TVs. One has a swankier name on the bezel. Both have essentially the same specs and features. Sure...one's remote looks different from the other, as does the OSD etc. But they're essentially, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. Except that one costs $3,000 and the other costs $600. I bought the one that costs $600. The quality of life having either one around is the same.

Ultimately, you can pretend that there's some "magical" difference between MS Office and anything else...that doesn't make that true. And just like everybody switched and re-trained their users back in the day when MS Office took over from WordPerfect and Lotus 123, people can do it again if they decide they want to.

Like IBM...who has switched it's entire employee base to Symphony. Not a small company...somewhere close to 300k employees last time I checked. The difference in having to use Symphony instead of MS Office? Pretty much nothing.

Now...that doesn't extend to products that are, in fact, inferior. Lotus Notes for example. That is the worst piece of sh1t ever created. I'd pay damn near any amount of money to NOT have to use it. Windows Live Mail is an infinitely better product than Notes.

But that's not the case with office suites. The VAST majority of users use so little of what any such products can do, it makes no difference what product they actually have in front of them. The different product suites are all essentially the same for probably 99% of the people on the planet, and that's just a simple fact that anyone can see by simply looking at the products side-by-side.

And sure...stuff is different. Like when I personally switched from DirecTV to Dish...the remote was all different, the menu was different, and for a while I was annoyed that stuff was...different. But granted that you're not completely braindead, you'll figure it out and be right back to where you were before the switch. Even for changing font sizes.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/28/2011 8:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
So you are not convinced that one method of switching fonts could be more convenient than another?


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 10:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
If you're *that* intent on proving, again, before the whole world, what a catastrophic moron you are...then sure, let's take a look at it.

OpenOffice:
http://www.4shared.com/photo/xJbNhRZN/oofont.html

Word 2003:
http://www.4shared.com/photo/lWVbQsQG/wordfont.htm...

Word 2007:
http://www.4shared.com/photo/2BFsKEoF/word07font.h...

Don't have 2010 handy, but with the Fisher-Price sized toolbars they now call "ribbons" it's the same interface as 2007.

So exactly what point do you think you're making about font selection here? Other than, as noted above, to prove YET AGAIN that you haven't got the slightest connection with the real world? THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/29/2011 12:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
You think you proved anything with your screen shots?

I can show you two pictures, one of the no-name Chinese iPhone knockoff you can get on black market for $100 and another picture of the real $500 iPhone, you will look at them and say: "but they are the same! why pay $500 for that Apple one when you can get the same from Chinese black market for only $100?"

You are quite predictable.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 1:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you are not convinced that one method of switching fonts could be more convenient than another?


I provide screenshots that prove, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that switching fonts is the same between the products. Then...

quote:
You think you proved anything with your screen shots?


Yes. I just proved, AGAIN, that you're an abysmally stupid person. Without even a tenuous grasp on reality. And your sudden about-face on your preferred example, switching fonts, proves it.

You're right - I am predictable. Predictably correct on every issue you try to argue about. And, predictably enough, ONCE AGAIN you try to pretend your catastrophic failure didn't just happen.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/29/2011 2:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just illustrating here.

You WILL say the phrase "why buy $500 Apple iPhone when there is that Chinese $100 clone that looks exactly the same!" when you are shown the two pictures I described above.

This is my main point - that you WILL say such a phrase.


RE: Umm
By T2k on 6/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/29/2011 3:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
all those word processors use exactly the same method (roll-down list with typefaces) to change fonts
Yeah, but did you notice that one word processor caches most used fonts at the top of the drop down list and immediately updates fonts in the document as you hover your mouse over the fonts in the list and the other word processor doesn't do anything like this, although on the Motoman's screen shot it looks exactly the same? No? You didn't notice? So why then you opened your dirty ass hole and farted here? Fart somewhere else, dickhead, and don't get in the way please when adults talk. Thank you.


RE: Umm
By T2k on 6/30/2011 2:08:51 AM , Rating: 1
Ah so you are just simply [b]too retarded to even express what the fuck are you trying to say?[/b]

Nice job, retard, thanks for confirming you are indeed a mentally challenged moron.
Just go back and keep brain-farting in your stupid basement; your analogies match the level of some ill-educated redneck, coming from some hellhole "college", claiming to be a 'developer' or 'expert'... I know your stupid type a mile away, you all stink the same loudmouthed shitkicker-attitude. :D

FWIW few things more annoying then scum like you keep trolling without EVER making any meaningful post. As I said, just STFU and stand corrected, you moron.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/30/2011 2:48:14 AM , Rating: 1
Corrected by whom? By a laughing stock of the forum who's just been caught with pants off by omnicronx in another thread about Playbook? With those famous Playbook "physical buttons" of yours? Get the fuck back in that thread, clown, do it quick and you may still save your reputation.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 2:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, no I wouldn't. But I probably would advise buying an Android phone instead.

Secondly...YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN. Specifically, trying to ignore the fact that you failed miserably. Again. As always.

I proved...again...beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're a dumbass with your "font selection" example. AND NOW YOU'RE IGNORING IT.

...like it never happened. The reason why is obvious. YOU'RE A F%CKING RETARD. You are without the slightest shred of merit. Now STFU and GTFO.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/29/2011 3:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
You think that if the pictures of two products look very similar then the experience using them is very similar too. Just like with my example with iPhone and its clone. Or example with Office font selectors where you think the clone behaves and feels exactly the same as the original. You must be really dumb if you think like that. Don't you know that clones always look like the real thing? Don't you know that the only reason the Chinese clone industry exists is because of people like you? Everyone who thinks like you is duped into buying a cheapo clone, because it LOOKS JUST LIKE THE REAL THING. Same as these font selectors. Got it now?


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 5:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes - I get that you keep regurgitating the same idiotic non-ideas because you've not got the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You're utterly without merit, and the longer you keep repeating the same nonsensical ramblings, the more you reinforce that fact.

Not a single one of your analogies, comparisons, "arguments," etc. have even been slightly valid. And I love how you're trying to compare non-MS office suites to "chinese clones" - but then again, children like you weren't around when MS blatantly copied WordPerfect and Quattro Pro to make Word and Excel. If anybody here is the "chinese clonemaker" it's Microsoft.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/29/2011 5:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
Stop lying Moto, I was comparing MS stuff with opensource crap like open office, symphony and the likes, I said nothing about other proprietary stuff like word perfect since I never used it.


RE: Umm
By wordsworm on 6/29/2011 7:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
I've never tried Symphony, but I can tell you that Open Office Writer is just as good as MS Word. I don't use presentation software any more, but I can tell you that Power Point sucked the last time I used it (with Office 2003). Excel was better than Calc until last year. But even before last year, its limitation only hindered me once. So, you keep throwing your money away for nothing, and I'll keep mine.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 7:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
You were comparing them to "chinese knockoffs", implying that MS Office was the original. I simply pointed out that MS is far, far from the original.

And I know you've never used WordPerfect - generally, children under 10 haven't heard of it.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/29/2011 8:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you've never heard of IBM SOM and IBM OS/2 PM, boy. Grow up.

You missed the point of my comparison, it was about quality, not about who was first and original, knockoffs usually have lower quality than original, so I was implying not originality but lower quality when I called them knockoffs.

MS office is an exception that proves the rule. One case where knockoff is better than the original.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 8:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
What a retard.

...for the record, I worked in an OS/2 shop for a few years. Where I was doing JCL and Cobol work on CICS and TSO systems. So sure...plenty familiar. Probably well before you were born..."boy."

Overall, you're just a piece of sh1t. Everything you say is just utter retardedness, and then you try to deflect and dodge when you get called on it. But you've managed to delude yourself so badly that you just keep right at it...making an a$$ of yourself before the whole world. It's too bad that you're occupying space in our universe...because even a pure vacuum would be more useful to the rest of the world than you are.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/29/2011 9:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
I could imitate your childish swearing and call you names too, but it's too boring. I'd rather wait for your next slip with your favorite "all things are equal no matter what their price is" nonsense and strike again. You'll be swearing and yelling like a baby while I'll be teaching you another lesson.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 11:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
See? Predictable. I've never made such a claim, and in fact, have repudiated such a notion right here in this article. But because that invalidates your claim, you ignore it.

I don't call you names to be mean. I call you names because you clinically meet the criteria to be deemed a "moron" or a "cretin" etc. And as evidenced by the fact noted above..."retarded" seems in order too.

You have taught no lessons, and refuse to learn any of your own. You waltz into these articles, fail miserably, declare victory, and do the same on the next article. You are absolutely insane. Not the slightest hint of rationality. Only someone truly demented can fail all the time like you do and repeatedly claim victory.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/30/2011 12:04:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've never made such a claim
You do make such a claim every time Apple products are mentioned. The second somebody mentions Apple you immediately start preaching your "all these computers are exactly the same no matter what their price is, be it PC or Mac" mantra. Don't lie to me, I've seen this many many times in this forum.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/30/2011 12:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
And in that specific case, it's true.

Your lie is that I assert that to be true in all cases. Which I don't.

When it is appropriate to make such an assertion, as is the case when you can see Apple, Dell, and HP laptops rolling out of the factories of the same ODMs - similar to LCD TVs/monitors, and even car tires - then I appropriately make that assertion.

When it's not the case, like Lotus Notes vs. Outlook/Exchange, or an iPhone vs. a Chinese clone, I don't.

You lack the mental dexterity to comprehend that fact, and as such, you attempt to paint me as a liar...when it is clear as day through my own posts here and elsewhere that I do not operate in the manner you insist that I do.

What is true is that you are mentally deficient, and require medical attention. You're literally insane.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/30/2011 1:17:42 AM , Rating: 1
There is the problem with your reasoning. You think if one Chinese company makes computers for several different American companies, then it's exactly the same workers assembling, same CNC machines cutting materials, same presses pressing sheets, same designers designing component, same screens etc. So then the end result must be some plastic cheap Acer Aspire looking and feeling and working exactly the same as much more expensive MacBook Pro. Right? This is what you're telling us.

But why when I take both in my hands I see that MacBook's screen is noticeably better, especially when I pick the matte option (cheap Acers are all ugly glossy screens these days), why Acer squeaks and creaks in my hand and MacBook feels like a slab of metal, why MacBooks keyboard is firm and a pleasure to type unlike Acer's, why MacBook's large touch pad is more comfortable for multitouch gestures than smaller Acer's touch pad? Why no stickers on MacBook unlike Acer? Why no bloatware and Notron shit on MacBook unlike Acer? Why Acer works a few hours less on a battery than MacBook Pro? Why is Acer thicker and heavier than MacBook? Why I can put MacBook on a soft surface and its cooling system will continue to work as usual because the cold air intake is not at the bottom, while Acer's cooling system with moronically designed cold air intake at the bottom will be blocked by the soft surface underneath?

Wait a second. How come there are so many differences, when you just said these computers are all the same. According to your statements, they must be the same because the same Chinese company made them, right? Did I get it correct from you?

So how come one Chinese company can do expensive nice machines and cheaper crappy machines at the same time? How come one company can do different products of different quality and price? Can you explain that? :)


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/30/2011 10:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you explain that? :)


Yes. But you won't understand it.

quote:
...then it's exactly the same workers assembling, same CNC machines cutting materials, same presses pressing sheets, same designers designing component...


For all intents and purposes, it is.

quote:
So how come one Chinese company can do expensive nice machines and cheaper crappy machines at the same time?


For the same reason that Chevrolet can make a Cavalier and a Corvette.

As for all you're "why" questions, the vast majority of them are red herrings, because you're not necessarily comparing apples and apples. Different machines for different purposes. There is nothing "magical" about the components that went into a Mac vs. what went into a PC. Made by the same processes on the same equipment so on and so forth. Many of your "whys" are just BS stupidity...and I'm stopping there, because I'm not going through this with you AGAIN. Every single one of your points about Apple's magical superiority has bee refuted exhaustively. And yet you trot them out time and again, pretending it's the first time you've ever tried them out...because YOU'RE MENTALLY DEFICIENT.

There is no fundamental difference in the components in/quality of a Mac vs. a PC. In fact, recent history of Apple shows that if anything, Apple designs are the worst in the world. No consumer electronics maker has a record nearly as bad as Apple.

...but you don't get that. Because your ILL. Seek medical attention. But feel free to hijack threads to press your Apple agenda time and time again, and repeatedly demonstrate your stupidity before the whole world...time and time again...because you apparently have the memory capacity of a goldfish.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/30/2011 1:41:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For all intents and purposes, it is
No it is not. Acers and Apples are designed by totally different design departments, by designers with totally different approaches to design. Can't you see that?
quote:
Different machines for different purposes
Ha, now you started to talk like an Apple tard. Now you suddenly rotated 180 degrees and oops - Mac is different machine now? Where did your rhetoric about Macs being "the same" go?
quote:
There is nothing "magical" about the components that went into a Mac vs. what went into a PC
True, but my point is not magic, not at all. My point is that you always fail to address my points about real differences between expensive Macs and cheaper PCs, like the list I posted above. Not a single word from you about THAT. You started to babble your old shit about "magic". Screw magic, I don't care about it, I wanted to know your opinion on these facts and these real differences. Are you such a pussy to answer directly without resorting to your old "magic" argument? Why can't you talk about real things and always slip into this "magic" shit? What's wrong with you Moto?
quote:
Every single one of your points about Apple's magical superiority
There is nothing magic, ABSOLUTELY nothing magic about the facts I stated above, it's all pure technical stuff, purely technical differences in build and design. Keep calling them "magic" and demonstrate how mentally deficient YOU are.
quote:
There is no fundamental difference in the components in/quality of a Mac vs. a PC
Well, I never called those differences fundamental, in the first place. You did, so you are actually calling yourself mentally deficient. Man, where is your logic?
quote:
recent history of Apple shows that if anything, Apple designs are the worst in the world
Unproven urban legend. Come on, get serious. I can say "recent history of MS shows that if anything, MS operating systems are the worst in the world", so what? You said, I said, blah blah... you don't want to talk serious and just wanna make baseless claims like a crying baby? Fine.
quote:
No consumer electronics maker has a record nearly as bad as Apple
Here I could easily hit you with a couple of links posted here on DT by our famous Mick, about Apple topping quality surveys, consumer reports or at least if not topping but then staying close to the top. Can you retort properly if I do that? Without resorting to your favorite senseless baseless bashing "apple is soo evil and sooo baaadd boohooo" style?
quote:
But feel free to hijack threads to press your Apple agenda time and time again, and repeatedly demonstrate your stupidity before the whole world
You think your hot empty words can prove anything? :))) So naive. I could blast you with all hot empty words too, but it's much more fun to watch you trying to retort my facts with your insane bubble about some "magic".


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/30/2011 5:09:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No it is not. Acers and Apples are designed by totally different design departments, by designers with totally different approaches to design. Can't you see that?


Nope. Because you're wrong. Sure, there's a hipster with a cappuccino who designed the specs on the Apple...the "whiteness" of it...etc. But the actual *work* done on, say, the motherboard and such is done by the people at the ODM. Like, Foxconn.

quote:
Ha, now you started to talk like an Apple tard. Now you suddenly rotated 180 degrees and oops - Mac is different machine now? Where did your rhetoric about Macs being "the same" go?


Wrong again. I have no idea what models of what you were trying to compare...and knowing you, you were trying to compare a DTR model to an Air or something just to try to bolster your lies.

quote:
True, but my point is not magic, not at all. My point is that you always fail to address my points about real differences between expensive Macs and cheaper PCs, like the list I posted above. Not a single word from you about THAT.


Already did. You ignored it. As always. There is nothing about a Mac at the same spec level as a PC to justify any difference in price. Nothing. You have made no points. As always. You have attempted to twist my words, misdirect, and obfuscate. As always. Then you stick your fingers in your ears and declare that I haven't addressed your points. Because you're retarded.

quote:
There is nothing magic, ABSOLUTELY nothing magic about the facts I stated above, it's all pure technical stuff, purely technical differences in build and design. Keep calling them "magic" and demonstrate how mentally deficient YOU are.


Several problems here. First, you have stated no facts. Second, there is no "techincal stuff" that is different. In fact, it is precisely the "technical stuff" that is the SAME. Only the aesthetic design is any different...not anything of any importance that would make anything better about the "build" or the "design."

quote:
Well, I never called those differences fundamental, in the first place. You did, so you are actually calling yourself mentally deficient. Man, where is your logic?


So because I used a word you can't pronounce, you think I'm mentally deficient? Or somehow being illogical? You are, in fact, trying to argue that there is something *fundamentally* "better" about Macs. That is EXACTLY what you are doing. And now you've apparently demonstrated that you simply don't even know what the word "fundamental" means.

quote:
Unproven urban legend.


No it isn't. The internet is covered in the information about how abysmally poor Apple's track record is. It's not unproven...although typically, probably urban - and definitely LEGENDARY. The piss-poor quality, design, and dependability of Apple products is indeed the stuff of legend. And that is an indisputable fact. You pretending, like Jobs himself, that nothing bad has ever happened does nothing but underline your own mental illness.

quote:
Here I could easily hit you with a couple of links posted here on DT by our famous Mick, about Apple topping quality surveys, consumer reports or at least if not topping but then staying close to the top. Can you retort properly if I do that? Without resorting to your favorite senseless baseless bashing "apple is soo evil and sooo baaadd boohooo" style?


Yes. Apple does not compete on the merits of it's products...including their reliability. They compete on the fact that they're Apple, and you're not. Apple consumers will report that they are ecstatically happy with their Apple products regardless of whether or not they blow up, fail immediately, can't be used in the sun, or whatever. If Apple products immediately killed every member of your family once opening the box, they'd still have 100% customer satisfaction ratings. Marketing propaganda. In the same way that Bose and Monster Cable consumers are convinced that they've bought the best stuff in the world, the same is true of Apple consumers. Reality has nothing to do with it.

quote:
You think your hot empty words can prove anything? :))) So naive. I could blast you with all hot empty words too, but it's much more fun to watch you trying to retort my facts with your insane bubble about some "magic".


My words may be hot, but they're certainly not empty. Your head is though. I have never presented anything but unassailable facts - which you simply ignore, then rant away about something else...constantly ignoring the facts while attempting to move to some other topic, or to simply re-assert some failed concept you've failed with a million times before. Not a single point you've attempted to make has been a fact. Not one. Every single item has been false, and your attempts to twist my words to try to show I've said something false don't work either.

...and, as I have noted many times before, here standing neck-deep in your own failure...dripping with the shame you've heaped upon yourself by demonstrating the depth of your mental illness yet again, you declare "victory." You have failed utterly. Completely without a single point on your scoreboard. And you think you've won.

You're sick. Mentally ill. You are in dire need of medical assistance.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 7/4/2011 10:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are, in fact, trying to argue that there is something *fundamentally* "better" about Macs. That is EXACTLY what you are doing.
You are a liar, these differences are not fundamental. I never said that they are fundamental. Keep lying, Moto, it's all you can do now.
quote:
there is no "techincal stuff" that is different
Liar, the differences like the smartly designed cooling system that does not struggle when you put your laptop on a soft surface, are purely technical. You can't live without lying every second, you're a pathological liar.
quote:
There is nothing about a Mac at the same spec level as a PC to justify any difference in price.
Liar. I told you many times about MacBooks being lighter/thinner/more battery efficient/better larger touchpad/no stupid stickers/no stupid malware. You keep ignoring that and pretend all these facts I stated do no exist. Pathological mentally ill liar you are, sir.
quote:
But the actual *work* done on, say, the motherboard and such is done by the people at the ODM. Like, Foxconn.
So you're saying the engine design team makes all the difference about a car, right? And the guys who are responsible for ergonomic aspects of the car do not matter? Like if internals of the car are the same V8 everywhere then cars are exactly the same even though the interior ergonomics are vastly different? You are dumb then. Really dumb, pathological, Apple hating irrational liar.


RE: Umm
By wordsworm on 6/29/2011 10:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
You ought to use styles and formatting rather than the font toggles.


RE: Umm
By seamonkey79 on 6/28/2011 4:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
I use both MS Office and OpenOffice every day at work, because for what I do, neither of them is perfect. What they individually do well, they do better than the other, but I can't just use one, because parts of the other is better for certain tasks, and vice versa.

They both have benefits and drawbacks, and it just doesn't really matter. Folks shouldn't feel superior to others because they spent less, and folks shouldn't think others are stupid because they decided to spend money for something they know will work.


RE: Umm
By Souka on 6/28/2011 4:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in IT and have worked at quite a few places: Boeing, Microsoft, AT&T, eBay, a few large wholesale companies, etc etc.

All of them run MS-Office...ocassionally some of the smaller companies I've worked at try to use OpenOffice to save $$.. but because the user base is limited in learning to use, or dealing with compatibility issues, it typically goes away.

Home use? Sure, use openoffice. Business use? Hmmm, not sure how you couldn't need MS-Office.

I wonder what Google corporate uses? GoogleDocs? hmmm....


RE: Umm
By tastyratz on 6/28/2011 5:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are confusing the corporate use and personal use products. It is clear you do not work in the field because as part of the infrastructure team in an I.T. department I could never fathom attempting to deploy anything besides Microsoft office in a business environment. Google/oo/etc. products might fit your personal needs and do so for many, but if you want to interface productively in the corporate world it takes office. The minimal cost here is marginal considering the costs of lost productivity from a non standard suite. The corporate offerings can help reduce server administration costs for a very small fee by offloading essential services. In some small to small-medium sized businesses that could be a godsend... or another salary.


RE: Umm
By VooDooAddict on 6/28/2011 10:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
Only thing I'd like to mention is that "Deploying" Google Apps is very straight forward from an I.T. department perspective. So far it's been quite easy to maintain.

As far as the group productivity for desktop MS Office vs. Google Apps I don't disagree with you. There's a large training curve switching from the standard MS Office to Google for any users that are doing complex documents.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 10:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's clear that you don't work in the field, because you probably would have remembered what companies went through when switching from WordPerfect and Lotus 123 to Word and Excel back in the day.

...which was essentially nothing, since Word and Excel work basically exactly the same way. And the same is true today...OO, Lotus Symphony, WordPerfect, et al are not significantly different from MS Office.

And to wit, IBM recently moved it's entire employee base from MS Office to Symphony. Amount of "retraining" required? None. Because it's the same thing.

And as I've noted before, that's not always the case - alternatives to MS aren't always equivalent or better. Lotus Notes for example...is possibly the WORST software product ever made. Forget about it being interchangeable with Exchange/Outlook...Windows Live Mail is an infinitely better product than Notes.


RE: Umm
By tastyratz on 6/30/2011 2:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
wow I would LOVE to work for your company then, I sure a hell wouldn't put that much faith in MY userbase. You must support an it staff. You might be dusty and old and remember migrating to cobalt when computer users had no CHOICE but to be proficient. Retraining certainly IS expensive and computers are now idiot boxes.

The fact of the matter is everyone in the workforce is proficient in office. Similar products look similar and function similar but are not the same from the end user perspective. Companies switch products sure, I am willing to bet a TON of companies even big ones are switching to open platform. Do you really want to dance the numbers against those who continue to use office? Do you think with something as expensive as office cheap companies and IT departments spend the money for no reason? Have you ever looked at projects for managing training at the macro level for a large block of users? This is not showing your grandmother how to open her pictures, this is much bigger. If you think switching is as simple as installing I would like an invitation to your world of unicorns and lollypops.

Also,
Lotus notes is used by big companies for reasons other than just e-mail. Notes thrives on the concept of integral databasing and while it does poorly with mail, it does excellent with its database support. Depending on your needs notes actually DOES have a place even in large companies like Novartis pharmaceuticals.


RE: Umm
By NicodemusMM on 6/28/2011 7:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
"There's fundamentally nothing in MS office that 99% of the world's computer users would get any value out of that Open Office et al don't already have."

Really? How about compliance? Whether it's with standards set by your business partners, vendors and clients or regulations imposed upon your industry, most businesses have to deal with compliance issues.

Blender and Google Sketchup are also free, but trying to use them for certain projects will get you laughed out of their respective industries.

~Nicodemus


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 10:22:37 AM , Rating: 2
There's no issue there. Note that many/most law firms are entrenched in WordPerfect Office for example. Other office suites meet those needs too, such as IBM having moved it's entire employee base to Symphony.


RE: Umm
By Makaveli on 6/29/2011 3:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's no issue there. Note that many/most law firms are entrenched in WordPerfect Office for example. Other office suites meet those needs too, such as IBM having moved it's entire employee base to Symphony.


I work in a law firm in the IT department and there hasn't been a word perfect machine in our environment in well over 10 years and everyone was happy to be rid of it. Everything is Office and has been for over a decade. We use custom map pacs, styles I don't see them switching anytime soon. We have lawyers with deadlines and users that aren't 100% tech smart, so a move so something else would never happen and we are worldwide with offices all over. I laugh at the law students how come in wanting to get emails on their Iphones. All I say is BES and they put their toys away.


RE: Umm
By Pirks on 6/29/2011 4:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All I say is BES and they put their Apple toys away
+6

Best line of the week! *thumbs up*


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/29/2011 5:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
First of all - so your firm is different. Hooray. The point is that your original assertion about non-MS suites not conforming with something is false.

quote:
I work in a law firm in the IT department and there hasn't been a word perfect machine in our environment in well over 10 years


quote:
We have lawyers with deadlines and users that aren't 100% tech smart, so a move so something else would never happen and we are worldwide with offices all over.


You do realize that those two sentances are in direct opposition to one another, yes? You changed from WordPerfect to Word but couldn't possibly change from Word to something else? And how much "training" did you have to do when that happened? If you're like anyone else in the world...close to none.

Also...with your "offices all over" assertion that you're just "too big" to do any such thing - unless your firm is bigger than IBM - who just recently switched all ~300k employees worldwide from MS Office to Lotus Symphony, you have no argument.

The fact of the matter is that for the VAST majority of users in the world, there is no difference between one word processor and another - or spreadsheet, or whatever else. The number of people who actually *would* notice a difference are effectively a rounding error, statistically speaking.


RE: Umm
By Marlonsm on 6/28/2011 1:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
Being MS Office is not only the name of the product.
I'd expect MS Office 2010 documents to be fully compatible with the web apps in Office 365. Something we, unfortunately, can't say about Google Docs or OpenOffice.
And, like it or not, MS Office is still the dominant format, I can't remember many times I ran across a .odf file I had to open, but .docx files are everywhere.


RE: Umm
By mondo1234 on 6/28/2011 2:43:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can't remember many times I ran across a .odf file I had to open, but .docx files are everywhere


True, but that might be because OO can save to .doc format, and do it mindlessly with just a preference setting. I use MS Office at work and OO at home. No big deal. In the past four years, I havent had anyone at work that had problems opening my documents authored at home. My kids use OO for University courses without a problem. Even their professors have no problem with Open Office. There is only so much the average person needs with office software. I even stopped buying the Family pack of Home and Student because OO is fine once you get used to it.


RE: Umm
By bug77 on 6/28/2011 4:11:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'd expect MS Office 2010 documents to be fully compatible with the web apps in Office 365. Something we, unfortunately, can't say about Google Docs or OpenOffice.


Great, praise Microsoft for making their "open" format unintelligible...

I'm with Moto here: very few people need MS Office. You can easily go through college and most your career using just OpenOffice. You only "need" MS Office when the stupid marketing department shoves some template down your throat. Or when you stuff more akin to desktop publishing.
I had absolutely no problem using OpenOffice at work for years.


RE: Umm
By Marlonsm on 6/30/2011 4:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
OpenOffice is a great piece of software, I already use it a lot. Most people don't really need more than that.

But for those who have to work with large documents along with other people still can't rely exclusively in OO or GoogleDocs (unless everyone also use those).
I've just tried opening some MS Office files I have in OO.org in Ubuntu, they do open and I can edit them, but large spreadsheets took much longer to open and calculate and documents had some formating issues. And as expected, my macros didn't work, as OO.org doesn't use VBA.

I also don't like being forced into a monopoly, but it's either that or having quite a lot of trouble to get work done.


RE: Umm
By Mitch101 on 6/28/2011 2:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Google Apps comes in two versions: Standard Edition is free, but ad-supported. Premier Edition runs $50 per account, per year. Which do you think Corporations will choose?

Lotus Symphony and Lotus Live present NO threat whatsoever.


RE: Umm
By vignyan on 6/28/2011 2:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
I am guessing you never used MS office...

I have used all three plus more to find an alternative that can come close to what MS office can offer. Sad as it is, I (and many people i know) have a secondary windows OS just for the office suite. Don't believe it? Believe it.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/28/2011 3:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
???

I've used MS Office since at least the 97 release...primarily because it's what the business world runs on.

I've also used various versions of WordPerfect office and OO/Lotus Symphony, even MS Works to see what's what as time goes on.

The number of people in the world that use even 25% of what any of the above offer in terms of functionality is vanishingly small. From a statistical standpoint, there's virtually no one who "needs" any more functionality than they get in WordPad, for example.

Probably fully 99% of the world's PC owners never use any functions more advanced than font formatting, copy & paste, spell check, and print preview. If you're inclined to be honest about what people actually do in Word, for example, I think you'll see that.


RE: Umm
By damianrobertjones on 6/28/2011 5:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Umm
By siuol11 on 6/28/2011 5:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
Openoffice can suck it. The are made of fail. Sure I hate MS, but if it takes me 15 minutes of hunting to add a damn page number, "free" isn't worth it.


RE: Umm
By Gondor on 6/28/2011 6:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Openoffice can suck it. The are made of fail. Sure I hate MS, but if it takes me 15 minutes of hunting to add a damn page number, "free" isn't worth it.


What seems to be the problem ? In version I use this is accomplished via three menu clicks: Insert -> Fields -> Page Number.


RE: Umm
By Motoman on 6/28/2011 10:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
Probably one of those people who's used IE all his life and when you put Firefox in front of him, he insists he can't use it because it's "all different."


RE: Umm
By T2k on 6/29/2011 2:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
You must be some kind of a retard - it is right under !!!NEWSFLASH!!! "Insert"... amazing, huh?

It's always telling when one cannot even recognize he will surely embarrass himself by his own stupid post claiming a basic thing isn't exist... priceless stupidity.


RE: Umm
By StraightCashHomey on 6/28/2011 5:43:03 PM , Rating: 1
You're obviously not a network administrator or any kind of decision maker where you work.

Just an FYI - puppies and kittens are often free.


RE: Umm
By tecknurd on 6/28/2011 11:17:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Google stuff = free

OpenOffice + variants like Lotus Symphony = free

OpenOffice and OpenOffice look a likes suck. They do not open the files equally to Microsoft Office, so they are the worst alternatives. I prefer SoftMaker Office. It is a lot better than OpenOffice. Sure it costs money, but the documents, spreadsheets, and presentations designed and saved in Microsoft Office looks the same in SoftMaker Ofice. There are minimal or no formating errors in SoftMaker Office. OpenOffice can not do that. OpenOffice is all by it self and not even a direct alternative to Microsoft Office. I do not work for SoftMaker, so I am just stating there something better than OpenOffice or its look a likes.

Personally, I would not use this so called "cloud" computing because companies gives me no certainly that data saved on their systems are secure.


By chris2618 on 6/28/2011 3:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
I would have overheads over powerpoint any day for lectures.


By joan.wong on 7/3/2011 11:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
“On June 28, 2011, Steve Ballmer, chief executive officer, Microsoft announced the worldwide availability of Office 365, Microsoft’s next generation productivity service. Office 365 is the culmination of more than 20 years of experience delivering world class productivity solutions to people and businesses of all sizes. It brings together Office, SharePoint, Exchange, and Lync in an always-up-to-date cloud service.”

With this,I suggested business having a free trial before they decide to use paid ones.
And to help you know better about their functions, you can visit www.365advisor.com for more information.
Wish it can help you!


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki